r 

2331 

v.  f ;  y 


UC-NRLF 


B  14  bo1*  mo 


in 

CO 

2 


BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

Theo  II.   Crook  Collection 


THE 


VENEZUELAN  QUESTION: 


U- 


BRITISH  AGGRESSIONS  IN  VENEZUELA,  OR  THE   MONROE   DOC- 
TRINE ON  TRIAL;  LORD  SALISBURY'S  MISTAKES;  FALLA- 
CIES OF  THE  BRITISH   "BLUE  BOOK"   ON  THE 
DISPUTED   BOUNDARY. 


-BY- 


WILLIAM  L.  SCRUGGS  ; 

Late  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the 
United  States  to  Colombia  and  to  Venezuela. 


ATLANTA,  GA.: 
The  Franklin>  Printing  and  Publishing  Co. 
1896. 


*U.S  Co  c^  to 


u 


3 ->CJEuA     r«-^  oc-wo,  THE 


VENEZUELAN  QUESTION: 


BRITISH   AGGRESSIONS  IN  VENEZUELA,  OR  THE   MONROE   DOC- 
TRINE ON  TRIAL;   LORD  SALISBURY'S  MISTAKES;   FALLA- 
CIES OF  THE  BRITISH   "BLUE  BOOK"    ON  THE 
DISPUTED   BOUNDARY. 


-by- 


WILLIAM  L.SCRUGGS; 

Late  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the 
United  States  to  Colombia  and  to  Venezuela. 


ATLANTA,  GA. : 
The  Franklin-  Printing  and  Publishing  Co. 
1896. 


v.  9;  4- 


•7  i  i  o  2. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE. 

Nearly  the  whole  of  Part  I.  of  this  paper,  under  the  title  of 
*'  British  Aggressions  in  Venezuela,  or  the  Monroe  Doctrine  on 
Trial,"  appeared  in  pamphlet  form  as  early  as  October,  1894. 
It  soon  passed  through  three  successive  editions,  and  was  subse- 
quently laid  before  the  Venezuela  Boundary  Commission,  in 
revised  form,  immediately  after  the  organization  of  that  body. 

Part  II.,  entitled  "  Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes  on  the  Boundary 
Question,"  was  first  prepared  in  March,  1896,  when  it  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  Boundary  Commission. 

A  portion  of  Part  III.,  entitled  "  Fallacies  of  the  British  Blue 
Book  on  the  Venezuelan  Boundary  Question,"  was  first  pre- 
pared and  submitted  to  the  Boundary  Commission  in  April,  1896. 
Since  then,  several  pages  and  notes  have  been  added. 

For  the  sake  of  greater  convenience  to  the  Commission,  as  well 
as  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  a  public  demand  for  these  publi- 
cations, all  three  are  now  collected,  in  the  present  enlarged  and 
revised  form. 


CONTENTS  OF  PART  I. 


f.  Geographical  position  of  the  country  in  dispute — When  and 
how  the  controversey  originated — Venezuela  the  successor 
in  title  of  Spain  in  1810  ;  England  the  successor  in  title  of 
Holland  in  18 14. 

II.  How  Spain  acquired  title  ;  how  Holland  acquired  title — The 
boundary  line  between  them  clearly  indicated  by  historical 
facts — That  line  the  rightful  one  between  Venezuela  and 
British  Guiana. 

III.  Great  Britain's  claim  in  virtue  of  treaties  with  Indian  occu- 

pants not  valid — Nor  did  the  territory  become  derelict  by 
the  revolt  of  18 10 — Title  not  affected  by  failure  to  occupy 
the  whole  territory — Principles  and  precedents — How  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  is  involved. 

IV.  Brief  review  of  the  controversy — How  England  has  utilized 

delay  of  settlement — Venezuela's  repeated  efforts  to  refer 
the  dispute  to  arbitration — Probable  reason  for  England's 
refusal  to  submit  her  claim  to  arbitration. 

V.  Magnitude  and  manifest  purpose  of  the  British  aggressions 
in  the  Orinoco  Delta — A  standing  menace  to  autonomous 
government  on  the  South  American  continent — Seizure  of 
the  Island  of  Patos. 

VI.  Attitude  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  other  American 
Republics — The  vital  principles  involved — Shall  those  prin- 
ciples be  now  abandoned  or  re-asserted  and  maintained  ? 


CONTENTS  OF  PART  II. 


Source  of  British  title  to  lands  in  Guayana — Some  of  Lord 
Salisbury's  Mistakes  on  this  point — -Origin  and  character 
of  the  so-called  "Schomburgk  line" — Why  and  when  it  was 
disclaimed  and  obliterated  by  the  British  Government — 
The  Diplomatic  Agreement  of  1850  restored  the  status 
quo  of  1836 — How  that  Agreement  was  violated  by  Great 
Britain — Lord  Salisbury's  "40,000  British  subjects"  west  of 
the  Essequibo — Venezuela's  claim  correctly  stated — Why 
the  dispute  is  properly  referable  to  friendly  arbitration,  etc. 


CONTENTS  OF  PART  III. 


Synopsis  of  unsupported  assumptions  by  the  British  Blue 
Book — Some  ludicrous  errors  of  historical  statement — Early 
discovery  and  conquest  of  Guayana — Raleigh  and  Keymis 
found  the  Spaniards  in  full  possession  in  1 595-161 7 — 
The  Dutch  West  India  Company  of  162 1  had  no  grant 
of  lands — With  the  exception  of  the  coast  settlements 
between  the  Corentyn  and  Essequibo  Rivers,  the  Dutch 
acquired  no  possessions  by  the  treaty  of  1648 — They  never 
had  a  settlement  west  of  the  Pumaron,  nor  on  the  Cuyuni 
above  tidewater — Spain  held  the  country,  as  against  all 
second  comers,  from  1500  to  1810,  when  Venezuela  suc- 
ceeded to  her  title — England's  military  occupations  in 
1 78 1,  1796,  and  1803  neither  conveyed  titles  nor  changed 
boundaries — She  purchased  only  the  three  settlements  of 
Demerara,  Berbice,  and  Essequibo  in  18 14,  and  can  justly 
claim  no  more — As  late  as  1836  she  recognized  Vene- 
zuela's sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  at  Barima  Point  and  over 
all  the  Orinoco  estuaries- — Some  additional  facts  about  the 
"Schomburgk  line  " — The  latest  and  most  startling  phase 
of  the  controversy— Why  the  South  American  States  are  so 
justly  alarmed  at  England's  encroachments,  etc.,  etc. 


PART  I. 

BRITISH  AGGRESSIONS  IN  VENEZUELA. 

I. 

On  the  northeastern  shores  of  the  South  American  continent, 
extending  from  the  Atlantic  ocean  and  the  gulf  of  Paria  to  the 
Orinoco  river  and  the  watersheds  of  the  Amazon,  is  a  vast  ex- 
panse of  rich  and  beautiful,  though  as  yet  but  sparsely  populated 
country,  known  as  the  Guayanas. '  Such  is  its  peculiar  topographi- 
cal conformation  that,  although  within  the  tropics,  it  has  great 
diversity  of  climate  and  soil,  and  is  capable  of  almost  every  va- 
riety of  agricultural  product  common  to  the  temperate  zone.  Its 
natural  wealth  of  mine  and  forest  is  almost  incalculable  ;  while  its 
favored  geographical  position,  fine  harbors,  and  network  of  navi- 
gable rivers  place  it  in  the  very  front  rank  of  future  commercial 
possibilities. 

This  vast  domain,  though  formerly  a  Spanish  possession,'-  is  now 
partitioned  among  five  separate  nationalities.  One  portion  belongs 
to  Brazil,  another  to  France,  another  to  Holland,  another  to  Eng- 

1  So  designated  by  all  the  old  maps  and  geographies  of  the  country.  It  was  the 
name  given  to  the  immense  area  bounded  south  by  the  Amazon,  west  by  the  Orinoco, 
and  north  and  east  by  the  Atlantic  ocean.  It  was  called  by  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  "  that 
mighty,  rich,  and  beautiful  Empire  of  Guinea  "  ;  by  the  less  enthusiastic  Dutch  navi- 
gators "  the  Wild  Coast  "  ;  and  by  the  Spaniards  "  El  Dorado."  The  fable  of  El  Do- 
rado, however,  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  on  the  coast  of  what  is  now  the  Republic 
of  Colombia;  to  have  passed  thence  to  the  interior  altaplanes  of  Bogota,  Tunja,  and 
Pamplona ;  and  thence  to  the  interior  table-lands  of  Guayana.  A  vague  rumor  pre- 
vailed at  different  times  throughout  all  these  regions  that  the  sovereign  prince  of  the 
remote  interior  appeared  on  great  state  occasions  with  his  body  sprinkled  over  with 
glittering  gold  dust ;  and  the  term  El  Dorado  ("  The  Golden  ")  was  subsequently 
applied  to  a  supposed  country  of  fabulous  mineral  wealth. 

2A11  the  early  chroniclers  and  historians  of  the  New  World,  from  Herrera  to 
Padre  Pedro  Murillo  Velarde,  attribute  to  Spain,  as  the  original  discoverer  and  occu- 
pant, proprietorship  of  the  whole  of  the  Guayanas.  By  the  treaty  of  1750  Spain 
ceded  to  Portugal  the  territory  on  the  Amazon  from  the  mouth  of  the  Rio  Negro. 
This  compact  was  rescinded  in  1761,  thus  reestablishing  the  status  quo.  In  1777  Spain 
again  relinquished  her  title  to  a  part  of  the  Amazon,  retaining,  however,  the  part 
above  the  mouth  of  the  Jabara. 


10 

land,  and  another  to  Venezuela.   We  are  now  concerned  only  about 
the  two  adjacent  portions  belonging  to  Venezuela  and  England. 

Venezuela  derived  title  from  Spain  in  1 8 1  o  ;  England  derived  title 
from  Holland  in  1814.  The  precise  boundary  between  them,  al- 
though clearly  inferable  from  historical  facts,  was  never  definitely 
fixed  by  treaty  ;  and  now,  after  the  lapse  of  many  decades,  they 
are  parties  to  a  boundary  dispute  which  has  interrupted  their 
friendly  intercourse.  Not  only  have  their  diplomatic  relations 
been  suspended  since  1887,  but  the  persistent  aggressions  of  the 
stronger  power  upon  the  territory  and  jurisdiction  of  the  weaker, 
have  reached  a  point  which  directly  threatens  the  dismemberment 
of  one  of  the  Spanish  American  republics,  and  indirectly  menaces 
the  sovereignty  and  territorial  integrity  of  at  least  two  others. 

Such  a  controversy,  involving  as  it  does  principles  so  vital  to 
autonomous  government  on  this  continent,  can  hardly  fail  to 
deeply  interest  the  American  people.  Moreover,  since  the  con- 
tention has  assumed  a  phase  in  open  conflict  with  American  pub- 
lic law,  and  with  an  international  status  in  South  America  for  the 
maintenance  of  which  the  United  States  stand  solemnly  pledged, 
it  has  ceased  to  be  a  matter  of  mere  local  concern,  and  has  already 
become  a  grave  international  question.  It  is  worth  while  then,  in 
order  to  a  clear  conception  of  its  merits  and  possible  consequences, 
to  briefly  examine  some  of  the  more  salient  points  in  its  origin 
and  history.  In  undertaking  this  task,  I  am  not  conscious  of  any 
motives  other  than  a  love  of  justice,  such  as  ought  to  actuate  an 
impartial  friend  of  both  parties  ;  but  it  will  be  quite  impossible  to 
preserve  this  attitude  without  permitting  the  facts  and  the  law  in 
case  their  full  force  of  simple  statement. 

Venezuela,  as  a  colony  of  Spain,  declared  her  independence  in 
1810;  and  nine  years  later  she  united  with  two  other  revolted 
Spanish  colonies  (New  Granada  and  Ecuador)  in  the  formation  of 
the  old  Colombian  federal  Union,  which  was  formally  recognized 
as  an  independent  nation  by  the  United  States  in  1822  and  after- 
wards by  all  the  powers  of  the  world.  Subsequently,  in  1830, 
when  that  Union  was  dissolved,  Venezuela  resumed  her  independ- 
ent position,  and  became  a  separate  and  independent  Republic, 
and  was,  in  due  course,  recognized  in  that  capacity  by  the  United 
States  and  by  all  the  other  powers.     Spain,  however,   sullenly 


11 

withheld  her  formal  recognition  till  1845,  when  by  public  treaty 
she,  quite  superfluously,  "  ceded "  to  the  Republic  the  thirteen 
provinces  (Guayana  being  one  of  them),  constituting  the  old  colo- 
nial Captaincy-General  of  Venezuela  in  1810.1  But  neither  in 
that  treaty  of  recognition,  nor  in  the  fundamental  law  of  either 
the  old  or  the  new  Republic,  is  there  any  mention  of  exact  bound- 
ary lines.  It  is  merely  stated,  in  general  terms,  that  the  bound- 
aries are  "the  same  as  those  which  marked  the  ancient  Viceroy- 
alty  and  Captaincy-General  of  New  Granada  and  Venezuela  in  the 
year  181c." 

And  there  is  equal  indefiniteness  as  to  boundary  in  the  cession 
of  part  of  Dutch  Guayana  to  England,  by  the  United  Nether- 
lands, in  1 8 14.  By  the  treaty  of  that  date,  England  agreed  to 
restore  to  Holland  "all  the  colonies,  factories,  and  establish- 
ments" that  were  in  the  military  possession  of  the  latter  in  1803, 
with  the  exception  only  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  and  "the 
establishments  of  Demerara,  Essequibo,  and  Berbice."  These 
were  to  be  disposed  of  by  supplemental  agreement  "conformable 
to  the  mutual  convenience  and  interests  of  both  parties.2  "  And 
by  the  terms  of  that  supplemental  agreement,  the  States-General, 
for  a  monetary  consideration,  ceded  to  England  "  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope  and  the  establishments  of  Demerara,  Essequibo,  and 
Berbice  "  on  the  condition  that  the  Dutch  should  retain  the  right 
freely  to  navigate  and  trade  between  those  places  and  the  territo- 
ries of  the  Netherlands  in  Europe.3  But  there  is  no  mention  of 
boundaries  of  these  three  "  establishments  "  or  settlements  which 
constitute  the  present  British  Guiana. 

Fortunately,  however,  the  extent  of  those  settlements  is  not  a 
matter  of  blind  conjecture  ;  for  their  boundaries  are  very  clearly 
indicated,  as  we  shall  see  further  on,  by  an  unbroken  chain  of  his- 
torical and  documentary  evidence  extending  back  over  a  period  of 
more  than  two  centuries. 


1  That  Venezuela's  title  was  perfect  before  this  act  of  specific  cessions,  there  can  be 
no  doubt.     (Infra.,  p  12.) 

'Art.  I.,  Tr.  of  London,  Aug.  13,  18 14. 

1  Art.  I.,  Supplemental  Treaty,  Aug.  13,  1814. 


12 


II. 


It  may  be  premised  as  a  principle  now  universally  accepted  that 
"when  a  European  colony  in  America  becomes  independent,  it 
succeeds  to  the  territorial  limits  of  the  colony  as  it  stood  in  the 
hands  of  the  parent  country."  The  United  States  have  always 
successfully  maintained  this  principle.  They  have  always  main- 
tained, as  other  nations  have  maintained,  that  discovery  gave  an 
exclusive  right  to  extinguish,  whether  by  purchase  or  by  conquest, 
the  Indian  title  of  occupancy.  And  they  have  as  consistently 
and  successfully  maintained  that  their  title  to  Indian  territory  was 
not  contingent  upon  any  act  of  specific  cession  by  the  parent 
country;  but  that  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783  "was  merely  a 
recognition  of  pre-existing  right  of  domain,"  and  that  "  the  soil 
and  sovereignty  within  the  acknowledged  limits  of  the  thirteen 
colonies  were  as  much  theirs  at  the  time  of  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence as  at  any  subsequent  period."1 

Now  that  the  whole  of  the  Guayanese  territory  originally  be- 
longed to  Spain,  in  virtue  of  her  right  as  the  first  discoverer  and 
occupant,  hardly  admits  of  doubt.  A  Spanish  subject,  Don  Alonzo 
de  Ojeda,  sailing  under  royal  commission,  was  the  first  discov- 
erer in  1499.  In  1S00<  Don  Vicente  Yaiiez  Pinzon,  another 
Spanish  subject,  was  the  first  to  explore  the  delta  of  the 
Orinoco.  In  1 5  3 1,  Don  Deigo  de  Ordaz,  another  Spanish  sub- 
ject, was  the  first  to  explore  the  Orinoco  river,  which  he  ascended 
as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  Meta.  Subsequently  the  coast  between 
the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  and  Essequibo  rivers,  and  the  Orinoco 
basin  as  far  up  as  the  site  of  the  present  city  of  Bolivar,  were  par- 
tially colonized  by  Spanish  subjects,  who  likewise  established  Chris- 
tian missions  among  the  aborignal  tribes  in  the  remote  interior.2 

1  Wharton's  Digest  Int.  Law.  vol.  I.,  section  6  ;  Wheaton's  Elements  Int.  Law,  Ed. 
1S63,  sec.  6,  and  notes ;  Wheat.  Reps.  XII.,  p.  527. 

-  Ojeda  skirted  the  entire  coast  of  the  Guayanas,  landing  at  several  places.  (Dal- 
ton's  Hist.  Guiana,  vol.  I.,  p.  91  ;  Robertson's  America,  II.,  p.  154.)  Columbus  dis- 
covered, but  did  not  explore  the  Orinoco.  Encountering  much  difficulty  in  entering 
the  mouth  of  the  great  river,  he  sailed  westward  and  landed  on  the  continent  at  several 
places.  (Robertson's  America,  II.,  Dalton's  Hist.  Brit.  Guiana,  Ed.  1855.  Irvmg> 
Life  of  Columbus.)  See  also  Gumilla's  Atlas  of  1740  ;  Bretano's  map  of  the  Orinoco 
Valley,  1751  ;  the  treaty  between  Spain  and  Portugal  of  1750,  by  which  Spanish 
Guayana  is  described  as  extending  from  the  Marafion  (or  Amazon)  river  to  the  margins 
of  the  Orinoco,  and  thence  eastward  and  northward  to  the  Atlantic  ocean. 


13 

These  are  familiar  facts  of  history.  And  it  is  a  principle  sanc- 
tioned by  usage  and  consistently  maintained  by  both  England  and 
the  United  States,  that  "continuity  furnishes  a  just  foundation  for 
a  claim  of  territory  in  connection  with  those  of  discovery  and 
occupation."  That  is  to  say,  the  discovering  nation  is  not  limited 
in  its  claim  to  the  particular  spot  discovered  or  occupied.  Thus, 
in  the  case  of  an  island,  the  discovery  or  occupancy  of  a  part  in- 
cludes the  whole ;  in  the  case  of  a  river,  the  discovery  and  occu- 
pancy of  its  channels  and  banks  extends  to  the  entire  region 
drained  by  it.  But  if  this  principle  be  admitted,  it  clearly 
establishes  Spain's  original,  rightful  claim,  not  only  to  all  the 
Guayanas  drained  by  the  Orinoco  and  its  tributaries,  but  to  the 
whole  of  what  is  now  known  as  British  Guiana. 

But  some  years  after  this  discovery  and  exploration  of  the  Guay- 
anas by  Spain,  and  during  her  long  war  with  the  revolted  Nether- 
lands, the  Dutch  obtained  a  foothold  on  the  Atlantic  coast,  and 
established  a  few  trading  posts  on  the  estuaries  of  the  Essequibo, 
Surinam  and  Demerara  rivers.1  It  is  true,  that  at  that  time,  the 
independence  of  the  Netherlands,  though  recognized  by  some  of  the 
other  powers,  had  not  been  acknowledged  by  Spain  ;  and  Holland, 
as  a  dependency  of  Spain,  could  not  acquire  this  territory  in  her 
own  right.  But  by  the  treaty  of  peace  and  recognition  of  1648, 
usually  referred  to  as  the  "treaty  of  Munster,  "2  each  of  the  parties 
(Spain  and  Holland)  were  to  remain  in  possession  of  the  countries 
then  in  actual  military  possession  of  each  in  America  and  in  the 
West  Indies.  This  gave  the  Dutch  a  legal  title  to  their  de  facto 
possessions  on  the  coast  and  river  estuaries  of  Guayana;  but  it 
likewise  prohibited,  by  necessary  implication,  any  subsequent 
extension  of  their  settlements. 

By  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  of  1713,  England  agreed  to  "  aid  the 
Spaniards  to  recover  their  ancient  dominions  in  America,"  the 
limits  of  which  were  stated  to  be  the  "same  as  those  in  the  time 


1  Reynal,  "  Hist.  Indies,"  Ed.  1S20.  The  Dutch  never  had  any  permanent  settlements 
west  of  the  Essequibo,  nor  on  the  river  itself  above  tide-water.  They  made  attempts 
to  occupy  the  country  between  the  Essequibo  and  the  Pumaron,  but  were  dislodged 
and  driven  out  by  the  Spaniards.  (See  Dalton's  Hist.  British  Guiana,  p.  182,  et 
sequens  :  Archivas  de  las  Indias,  Seville  ;  Archivo  de  lasSemancas  ;  Fr.  Pedro  Simon,  etc. 

2  Otherwise  called  the  Peace  of  Westphalia,  signed  at  Munster,  Oct.  24,  164S, 
whereby  the  independence  of  the  United  Dutch  Provinces  was  recognized  by  Spain. 
(See  art.  V.  of  the  Treaty.) 


14 

of  Charles  the  Second  ;  "*  and  it  is  a  fact  of  history,  quite  easy  of 
verification,  that,  "in  the  time  of  Charles  the  Second  "  (1661- 
1700)  Spain  claimed  and  held  possession  of  all  the  Guayanese  ter- 
ritory west  and  south  of  the  Essequibo  river.  2 

Again,  in  the  treaty  of  Aranjuez,  of  June  23,  1791,  between 
Spain  and  Holland,  for  the  extradition  of  fugitives,  the  limits  of 
their  respective  territories  and  settlements  are  very  clearly  indi- 
cated by  the  clause  which  provided  for  an  exchange  of  fugitives 
"between  Puerto  Rico  and  San  Eustaquio,  Coro  and  Curacao, 
the  Spanish  establishments  in  the  Orinoco  and  Esequibo,  Deme- 
rary,  Barbice  and  Surenam."  Thus,  according  to  the  maps 
of  the  country  in  use  at  the  time,  Spanish  Puerto  Rico  was  oppo- 
site Dutch  San  Eustaquio,  Spanish  Coro  over  against  Dutch  Cu- 
racao, while  the  Spanish  settlements  and  Missions  on  the  west  side 
of  the  Essequibo  were  directly  opposite  those  of  the  Dutch  on  the 
estuaries  of  that  river.  The  inference  is  therefore  an  almost 
necessary  one  that  the  Essequibo  river  was  the  recognized  legal 
boundary  line  between  Spanish  and  Dutch  Guayana.  3 

^rt.  VIII,  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  July  13,  1 713. 

2  Depon's  Voyages,  etc.,  vol.  III.,  p.  333 ;  Noire,  the  English  geographer,  Works, 
published  in  1828;  Baron  Humboldt,  Voy.  Equinoctial  Regions,  vol.  IV.,  p.  218. 
Noire,  the  English  authority  above  cited,  says :  "  British  Guiana  extends  from  the 
Corentin  to  the  Essequibo.  This  is  the  rightful  extent  of  the  colony,  as  determined 
by  the  Treaty  of  Munster  of  1648,  which  has  never  been  abrogated."  The  attempt  by 
the  Dutch  to  extend  their  settlements  westward  to  the  Pumaron  was,  he  says,  "  in 
violation  of  treaty  stipulations."  .  .  .  "In  reality,"  he  continues,  "the  entire  coast 
country  from  the  Orinoco  to  the  Essequibo  constitutes  what  should  be  called  Spanish 
or  Colombian  (now  Venezuelan)  Guayana."  See  also  Archive  de  las  Indias,  certified 
copies  of  which  have  been  published  in  three  vols,  by  the  Venezuelan  Government. 

3The  Spanish  text  is  as  follows  :  "Art.0  I.  Se  establece  la  restitucion  reciproca  de 
las  fugitivos  blancos  6  negros  entre  todas  las  posesiones  espanoles  en  America  y  las 
colonias  holandeses,  particularmente  entre  aquellos  en  que  las  quejas  de  desercion 
han  sido  mas  frequentes,  a  saber,  entre  Puerto  Rico  y  San  Eustaquio,  Coro  y  Curacao,  los 
establecimientos  espanoles  en  el  Orinoco  y  Esequibo,  Detnerary,  Berbice  y  Surinam."  The 
italics  and  punctuation  marks  are  as  in  the  original. 

Translated  literally.it  reads  as  follows:  "Art.  I.  The  reciprocal  restitution  of  fu- 
gutives,  white  or  black,  is  established  between  all  the  Spanish  possessions  in  Amer. 
ica  and  the  Dutch  colonies,  particularly  between  those  in  which  complaints  of  desertion 
have  been  most  frequent,  namely,  between  Puerto  Rico  and  San  Eustaquio,  Coro  and 
Curacao,  the  Spanish  establishments  in  the  Orinoco  and  Essequibo,  Demarary,  Berbice 
and  Surenam.'''' 

The  sense  is  quite  plain,  namely,  that  as  Puerto  Rico  was  Spanish  and  San  Eustaquio 
Dutch,  Coro  Spanish  and  Curacao  Dutch,  so  were  Spanish  all  the  Orinoco  "establish- 
ments "  tip  to  the  Essequibo,  etc.  In  other  words,  the  Essequibo  settlement  was,  and  the 
Orinoco  settlement  was  not,  Dutch. 


15 

It  is  true  that,  before  and  subsequent  to  the  date  of  this  treaty, 
the  Dutch  attempted  to  make  encroachments  upon  the  territory 
west  of  the  Essequibo ;  but  all  the  chroniclers  of  the  times  agree 
that  the  intruders  were  promptly  driven  back  by  the  Spaniards. 
And  even  if  they  had  not  been,  there  was  not  sufficient  time  in  the 
twenty-three  years  from  1791  (the  date  of  the  treaty  of  Aranjuez) 
to  1 8 14  (when  the  Dutch  ceded  the  country  to  England)  to  give 
color  of  title  by  prescription.  Title  by  prescription,  even  if  admitted 
to  be  valid  in  such  cases,  must  be  from  time  immemorial,  and  the 
occupancy  must  have  been  undisputed,  continuous  and  peaceable — 
conditions  which  were  totally  wanting  in  the  present  instance. 

Not  only  is  the  Essequibo  indicated  as  the  dividing  line  by  the 
extradition  treaty  of  1791,  but  no  less  clearly  so  by  historical 
events  which  preceded  and  led  up  to  it.  Thus,  in  1780,  the 
Spanish  Government  directed  the  Governor-General  of  Venezuela 
to  establish  rules  and  regulations  for  peopling  and  governing  the 
province  of  Guayana  between  the  Essequibo  and  Orinoco  rivers. 
This  royal  decree  recited  the  fact  that,  although  the  Dutch  had 
extended  themselves  on  the  coast,  and  on  the  estuaries  of  the 
Essequibo,  there  were  "  no  Dutch  settlements  any  where  remote 
from  the  seacoast";  that  westward  from  the  Essequibo  and  south- 
ward from  the  Atlantic  was  "avast  and  fertile  region  occupied 
by  Indian  tribes,1  and  by  fugitive  negro  slaves  from  the  Dutch 
settlements";  that  this  valuable  domain  belonged  to  Spain  by  right 
of  original  discovery  and  occupancy;  and  that  as  it  had  "never 
been  ceded  to  or  occupied  by  any  European  power,"  it  ought  to 
be  colonized  and  governed  in  the  name  of  the  Spanish  monarch.2 

Furthermore,  in  accordance  with  the  purposes  of  this  decree, 
Don  Jose  Felipe  de  Inciarte  was  commissioned  to  investigate 
and  report  upon  the  condition  and  extent  of  the  Dutch  encroach- 
ments in  Guayana.  In  due  time  he  reported  that  the  Dutch  had 
an  insignificant  trading-post,  apparently  of  a  temporary  character, 
on  the  coast  between  the  Essequibo  and  Moroco  rivers.  He  rec- 
ommended their  immediate  expulsion  and  the  establishment  of 
Spanish  forts  in  the  vicinity.      In  a  subsequent  dispatch,  dated 

'There  were  as  many  as  fourteen  distinct  tribes  between  the  Essequibo  and  Orinoco 
rivers  and  between  the  Atlantic  coast  and  the  Brazilian  border.  (Brett's  "  Indian 
Tribes  of  Guiana,"  London,  1868.) 

2Archivo  de  las  Indias,  Seville  ;  Certified  copies  of  which  are  now  before  the  Com- 
mission. 


16 

December  5,  1783,  he  reported  that  the  Dutch  had  "already 
abandoned  their  '  posts  '  near  the  mouth  of  the  Moroco. "  It  does 
not  appear  whether  these  abandoned  "posts"  were  afterwards 
occupied  by  the  Spaniards,  nor  is  that  essential  to  the  merits  of  the 
case.  The  formal  remonstrance  by  Spain,  and  the  subsequent 
withdrawal  of  the  Dutch,  destroyed  all  color  of  title  by  prescrip- 
tion.1 

It  is  quite  manifest,  then,  that  Great  Britain  could  not  have  de- 
rived title  to  her  present  holding  west  of  the  Essequibo,  much  less 
west  of  the  Pumaron,  from  the  Dutch  by  the  treaty  of  18 14. 
Nor  can  she  justify  her  bold  and  persistent  aggressions  westward 
to  the  margin  of  the  Orinoco,  and  southward  in  the  Cuyuni  basin, 
on  the  plea  that  any  portion  of  either  tract  was  ever  in  the  un- 
interrupted or  peaceable  possession  of  the  Dutch. 

III. 

Still  more  untenable  is  England's  claim  to  this  territory  on  the 
ground  of  her  alleged  treaties  with  some  native  Indian  tribes. 
Such  a  pretension  may  be  said,  without  discourtesy,  to  be  simply 
absurd.  On  the  discovery  of  the  American  continent,  the  princi- 
ple adopted  by  European  nations,  in  order  to  avoid  conflicting  set- 
tlements and  consequent  wars,  was  that  discovery  gave  title  to  the 
government  by  whose  subjects  or  by  whose  authority  it  was  made. 
The  title  thus  acquired  was  good  as  against  all  other  European  gov- 
ernments, and  might  be  consummated  at  any  time  by  actual  pos- 
session. It  gave  to  the  nation  making  the  discovery  the  sole 
right  of  acquiring  the  soil  from  the  natives,  and  of  establishing  set- 
tlements thereon.  This  was  a  right  which  all  European  nations 
asserted  for  themselves,  and  to  the  assertion  of  which  all  assented. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  rights  of  the  native  Indian  occupants, 
the  discovering  nation  claimed  and  exercised  ultimate  dominion 
over  the  soil  while  it  was  in  their  possession.  It  claimed  and  ex- 
ercised the  right  to  grant  and  convey  the  lands,  subject  only  to 
Indian   occupancy,  and  such  grants  have  been  uniformally  held 

xAs  a  matter  of  fact,  up  to  1791,  the  Dutch  never  had  any  fixed  settlements  west  of  the 
Essequibo.  The  Dutch  West  India  Company  had  some  sort  of  a  trading  "post"  there, 
from  which  predatory  raids  were  made  as  far  as  the  Moroco  and  Brazo  Barima ;  but 
they  were  in  each  case  driven  away  by  the  Spaniards.  (See  "  Hist.  Nueve  Andalucia," 
by  Caulin  :  also  Archivo  de  las  Indias,  Seville.) 


17 

to  be  valid.  It  is  no  argument  to  say  that  the  opinion  of  man- 
kind has  changed  on  this  point  with  the  progress  of  civilization  ; 
for  if  the  truth  of  the  assertion  be  granted,  it  would  not  affect 
rights  previously  acquired  by  the  general  consent  of  the  civil- 
ized world.  The  right  of  nations  to  countries  discovered  in 
the  sixteenth  century  is  determined,  not  by  the  improved  and 
more  enlightened  opinion  of  the  world  three  and  a  half  centuries 
later,  but  by  the  law  of  nations  as  it  was  then  understood  and  uni- 
versally recognized.  This  is  a  principle  so  fundamental,  and  so 
firmly  established  by  usage,  that  it  is  no  longer  a  matter  for  dis- 
cussion. 

Nor  did  the  successful  revolt  of  1810  affect  the  title  which  Vene- 
zuela, by  that  act,  derived  from  Spain.  It  is  a  principle  of  univer- 
sal application  that  when  a  colony  is  in  revolt,  and  before  its  inde- 
pendence has  been  acknowledged  by  the  parent  country,  the  colo- 
nial territory  belongs,  in  the  sense  of  revolutionary  right,  to  the 
former,  and  in  the  sense  of  legitimate  right,  to  the  latter.  "It 
would  be  monstrous,"  wrote  Mr.  Secretary  Marcy  in  1856,  "to 
•contend  that,  in  such  a  contingency,  the  colonial  territory  is  to  be 
treated  as  derelict,  and  subject  to  voluntary  acquisition  by  a  third 
nation.  The  idea  would  be  abhorrent  to  all  the  notions  of  right 
■which  constitute  the  international  code  of  Europe  and  America."1 
And  yet,  astonishing  as  it  may  seem,  the  assumption  that,  pend- 
ing a  war  of  colonial  revolution,  all  territorial  rights  of  both  par- 
ties to  the  contest  become  extinguished,  and  the  colonial  territory 
open  to  seizure  by  anybody,  is  sometimes  made  (as  in  the  present 
case)  about  the  only  foundation  for  England's  pretension  of  right 
to  territory  in  South  America. 

Equally  untenable  is  the  contention  that  "Venezuela  forfeited 
any  color  of  title  she  may  have  had"  to  that  territory  "by  her 
failure  to  occupy  it ;  "  for  this  would  be  about  equivalent  to  saying 
that  a  nation  forfeits  legal  title  to  her  unoccupied  domain  whenever 
she  is  physically  unable  to  prevent  its  forcible  seizure  by  a  stronger 
power.  Such  a  proposition  would  shock  the  moral  sense  of  the 
civilized  world,  and  nullify  the  most  elementary  principles  of  pub- 

'Mr.  Marcy,  Secretary  of  State,  Instructions  to  Mr.  Dallas,  U.  S.  Minister  in  England, 
July  26,  1856,  U.  S.  Foreign  Relations  :     Wharton's  Dig.,  vol  I.,  sec.  7. 
2  v 


18 

lie  law.  "Everything  included  in  the  country  pertains  to  the 
nation,"  says  Vattel,  "hence  nobody  but  the  nation,  or  its  legal 
representative,  is  authorized  to  dispose  of  such  things."  And 
then,  as  if  prescient  of  this  very  question  in  Guayana,  the  same 
eminent  author  adds :  "  If  there  be  kept  uncultivated  and  desert 
places,  nobody  has  a  right  to  take  possession  of  them  without  the 
consent  of  the  nation.  Although  the  nation  makes  no  actual  use 
of  its  desert  places,  they  nevertheless  belong  to  it.  It  has  inter- 
ests in  preserving  them  for  future  use,  and  is  not  responsible  to 
any  person  for  the  manner  in  which  it  makes  use  of  its  property."1 
Furthermore,  in  the  Guayanas,  no  less  than  in  other  parts  of  the 
American  continent,  the  right  of  discovery  and  conquest  had  been 
already  exhausted  in  1814,  when  the  Dutch  ceded  these  possessions 
in  Guayana  to  Great  Britain.  There  was  no  longer  any  territory 
open  to  conquest  by  European  powers.  For  what  subsequently 
became  known  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine  had  a  much  earlier  origin 
than  the  formal  declaration  of  1 823.  The  principles  then  enunciated 
were  not  new.  They  had  been  coeval  with  the  very  existence  of 
the  United  States  government.2  They  were  the  logical  sequence 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent 
which  followed.  They  were  necessarily  incident  to  the  character 
of  American  institutions ;  clearly  foreshadowed  in  the  policy  of 
Washington's  first  administration  ;  distinctly  outlined  in  his  Fare- 
well Address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States ;  and  were  subse- 
quently repeated  and  emphasized  by  John  Quincy  Adams,  as 
Secretary  of  State,  in  his  official  conferences  and  protocols  with 
the  Russian  Ambassador,  Baron  Tiiyl.  So  that  President  Monroe 
merely  formulated,  in  a  timely  message  to  Congress,  an  unwritten 
law  of  a  fundamental  character  which  had  already  become  as  sacred 
to  the  American  people  as  the  Constitution  itself.  European 
colonies  already  established  and  recognized  were  not  to  be  inter- 
fered with.  But  "no  new  colonies"  were  to  be  established  or 
recognized.     Nor  was  there  to  be  "any   extension  of  existing 


1Vattel,  Law  of  Nations,  Book  II.,  chap.  VII.,  sec.  86. 

2Tucker's  Monroe  Doctrine,  pp.  12,  14,  21,  40,  III ;   Adams's  Memoirs,  163. 


19 

colonial  systems  "  ;  and,  above  all,  "  no  interposition  by  European 
powers  in  the  affairs  of  the  Spanish  American  Republics."1 

There  is  little  room  for  construction  in  such  declarations  as 
these.  There  is  no  mistaking  the  plain  and  emphatic  terms  of 
such  an  inhibition.  It  clearly  extended  to  all  possible  treaties  or 
compacts  with  native  Indian  occupants,  whereby  new  European 
colonies  might  be  set  up  on  this  continent.  It  clearly  compre- 
hended all  such  treaties  and  compacts,  real  or  pretended,  whereby 
the  area  of  existing  European  colonies  might  be  enlarged.  And 
it  quite  as  clearly  embraced  all  possible  aggressions  and  usurpa- 
tions whereby  the  territorial  area  and  domain  of  existing  European 
colonies  might  be  augmented  by  mere  de  facto  occupancy. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  principles  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
were  departed  from,  if  not  partially  abandoned,  in  the  unfortunate 
Convention  of  1850,  usually  known  as  the  "  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty."  That  compact  is  an  admitted  blunder  ;  but  it  will  bear 
no  such  construction  as  this.  Neither  Mr.  Clayton  nor  the  Presi- 
dent, nor  the  slender  majority  of  Senators  who  ratified  that  treaty, 
ever  gave  it  that  construction.  The  most  that  can  be  said,  is  that 
they  were  misled  and  deceived  by  statements  officially  made  by 
the  British  minister,  which,  however,  his  government  afterwards 
disclaimed ;  and  that  they  were  thus  entrapped  into  a  mere  con- 
structive recognition  of  the  British  status  quo  ante  in  Central 
America.  And  they  were  the  more  easily  led  into  this  mistake 
by  an  intense  desire  to  stimulate  a  great  international  enterprise 

Sticker's  Monroe  Doct.,  pp.  17-20 ;  Whart.  Dig.,  sec.  57;  President  Monroe's  an- 
nual messages,  Dec.  2,  1823,  and  Dec.  7.  1824;  Adams's  Diary,  VI.,  163;  President 
Polk's  annual  messages,  1845-48. 

Under  the  Monroe  administration,  it  was  asserted  "as  a  principle  in  which  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  United  States  are  involved,  that  the  American  continents,  by  the 
free  and  independent  condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintained,  are  hence- 
forth not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future  colonization  by  any  European  power  "  ; 
and  that  "we  owe  it  to  candor"  to  declare  that  "any  attempt"  on  the  part  of  Euro- 
pean powers  "to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  would  be  con- 
sidered as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety."  That  "with  the  existing  colonies  or 
dependencies  of  any  European  power  we  have  not  interfered  and  shall  not  interfere"; 
but  with  respect  to  "  Governments  who  have  declared  their  independence  and  main- 
tained it,  we  could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing 
them,  or  controlling  in  any  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  European  power,  in  any 
other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  towards  the  United 
States." 


20 

at  a  time  when  the  capital  necessary  to  the  success  of  such  enter- 
prises was  difficult  to  obtain.  Moreover,  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty, 
if  it  was  ever  a  legal  compact  (which  is  very  doubtful),  has  been 
practically  a  dead  letter  since  1881-2,  when  it  was  officially  de- 
nounced by  the  United  States  Government.  But  even  if  this 
were  not  the  case,  and  the  treaty  were  legal  and  in  full  force,  it 
would,  by  its  very  terms,  effectually  debar  Great  Britain  from 
her  present  de  facto  possessions  in  Guayana  west  of  the  Moroco 
river  and  in  the  Lower  Cuyuni  basin. 

Again,  it  has  been  said  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  no  legal 
validity  for  lack  of  formal  legislative  sanction.  Such  an  opinion 
merits  very  little  consideration.  In  the  first  place,  every  Resolu- 
tion on  the  subject  introduced  into  either  House  of  Congress  has 
been  in  unqualified  support  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine — not  one  of 
which  was  ever  rejected.  That  of  1824,  by  Mr.  Clay,  never  came 
to  a  vote  ;  that  of  1879,  by  Mr.  Burnside,  was  merely  referred  to 
the  appropriate  committee,  which  failed  to  report  before  the  close 
of  the  session;  that  of  1880,  by  Mr.  Crapo,  was  unanimously 
and  cordially  sustained  by  the  Foreign  Affairs  committee,  but  the 
session  closed  before  the  resolution  could  be  taken  up.  In  the 
second  place,  express  legislative  sanction  has  never  been  deemed 
necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  Monroe  declaration.  Every  one 
knows  that  most  of  the  rules  of  international  law  impose  obliga- 
tions derivable  from  precedent  alone,  and  that  as  a  precedent  the 
Monroe  declaration  of  1823  has  been  very  generally  acknowledged 
and  accepted.  It  has  been  confirmed  by  every  subsequent  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  and  by  every  chief  executive  of  every 
South  America  republic,  who  has  ever  had  occasion  to  refer  to  it; 
and  it  has  been  persistently  reiterated  and  upheld  by  publicists 
and   statesmen  of  all   political   parties   in   both   the   Americas.1 

xThe  House  Resolution  of  1826,  on  the  subject  of  the  Panama  Conference,  consti- 
tutes no  exception.  That  Resolution  merely  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  United 
States  ought  not  to  be  represented  in  the  proposed  conference  "  except  in  a  diplo?natic 
character";  that  the  United  States  " ought  not  to  form  any  alliance "  with  the  South 
American  republics,  but  "be  left  free  to  act,  in  any  crisis,  in  such  manner  "  as  our 
"  feelings  and  honor  might  dictate."  Looking  back  over  the  history  of  those  times,  it 
is  easy  to  see  the  motive  which  prompted  this  Resolution,  and  why  the  Panama  Con- 
ference failed.  One  of  the  questions  proposed  for  its  discussion  was  "  the  considera- 
tion of  the  means  to  be  adopted  for  the  entire  abolition  of  the  African  slave-trade." 
Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  then  slaveholding  provinces  of  Spain,  would  have  been  involved 


21 

Finally,  to  say  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  no  validity  for  want 
of  express  legislative  sanction  is  to  assume  that  President  Wash- 
ington's Farewell  Address  has  none,  for  neither  has  that  ever  re- 
ceived any  express  legislative  sanction  ;  and  yet  every  one  knows 
that  that  Address  has  shaped  the  foreign  policy  of  the  United 
States  for  a  whole  century. 

IV. 

It  is  never  a  grateful  duty  to  review,  however  dispassionately 
and  impartially,  a  long  and  aggravated  series  of  aggressions  by 
the  strong  against  the  weak  ;  and  in  the  present  case  it  is  sincerely 
wished  so  unpleasant  a  task  might  be  omitted  entirely.  But  any 
account  of  the  origin  and  history  of  this  Guayana  boundary  dis- 
pute would  be  lamentably  incomplete  and  defective  without  a 
brief  review  of  the  unsuccessful  efforts  that  have  been  made  to 
end  it  ;  and  this  necessarily  accentuates  a  policy  which,  I  regret 
to  say,  has  too  often  characterized  England's  dealings  with  weaker 
powers. 

A  few  years  after  the  cession  of  1 8 1 4,  some  British  traders 
es'ablished  trading-posts  and  settlements  on  the  Atlantic  coast 
between  the  Essequibo  and  Pumaron  rivers.  This  called  forth 
remonstrances  from  the  Colombian  Government,  which  was,  how- 
ever, at  that  time  too  much  occupied  with  internal  strifes  to  pay 
much  attention  to  foreign  affairs ;  and  thus  this  first  of  a  long 
series  of  aggressions  was  met  only  by  formal  protest  which  seems 
to  have  been  totally  disregarded.1 

in  the  discussion  ;  Hayti,  already  a  new  Negro  Republic,  would  have  claimed  the  right 
of  representation  ;  and  there  were  then  about  4,000,000  negro  slaves  in  the  Southern 
States  of  the  United  States  !  Thus  the  necessity  which  then  existed  of  preserving  an 
institution  under  our  Federal  Constitution,  lost  to  us  the  opportunity  of  giving  perma- 
nent direction  to  the  political  and  commercial  connections  of  the  newly  enfranchised 
Spanish  American  States. 

'See  "Official  History  of  the  Boundary  Discussion,"  part  I.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  England's  extreme  pretension  then  extended  no  farther  than  the  right  banks 
of  the  Pumaron  river.  Her  subsequent  claim  to  the  mouth  of  the  Moroco  seems  to 
have  been  an  afterthought.  The  "  London  Atlas  of  Universal  Geography,"  even  in  as 
late  an  edition  as  that  of  1842  (two  years  after  the  "  Schomburgk  line"  had  been  run), 
represents  the  extreme  western  boundary  of  British  Guayana  to  be  the  Pumaron  river, 
and  the  area  between  that  river  and  the  Essequibo  as  "  territory  claimed  by  Venezuela." 
(See  also  Boddam-Wheatham's  "  Roraima  and  British  Guinea,"  pp.  204  and  205  ;  also 
Instructions  by  the  Colombian  government  to  its  minister  at  London,  issued  in  1822. 
See  also  Myer's  Geography,  a  semi-official  English  publication,  in  two  large  volumes, 
London,  1828.) 


22 

The  next  direct  official  reference  to  the  subject  was  in  1840. 
Venezuela,  which  had  been  a  separate  Republic  for  about  ten 
years,  now  earnestly  remonstrated  against  these  encroachments, 
and  claimed  the  Essequibo  river  as  the  rightful  boundary.  No 
immediate  attention  was  paid  to  this.  But  soon  afterwards  the 
British  representative  at  Caracas  gave  notice  that  Mr.  (afterwards 
Sir)  Robert  Schomburgk  had  been  commissioned  to  t%  survey  and 
mark  out  the  boundaries  of  British  Guayana."  The  assent  and 
concurrence  of  Venezuela  was  not  asked.  It  was  purely  an  ex 
parte  proceeding. 

A  few  months  later,  when  there  had  been  some  informal  con- 
ferences on  the  subject,  the  British  representative  informed  the 
Venezuelan  minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  that  the  Demerara  colonial 
government  had  been  instructed  from  London  to  resist,  by  force 
if  necessary,  any  aggressions  on  the  frontier  territories  occupied 
by  independent  tribes  of  Indians  ! 

Realizing  at  that  time  her  utter  inability  to  wage  a  successful  war 
with  so  powerful  a  nation,  Venezuela  proposed  some  conventional 
agreement  as  to  boundary.  This  proposition  seems  to  have  been 
treated  with  indifference.  At  any  rate,  Schomburgk  went  on  with 
his  survey,  and  finally  completed  and  staked  off  the  line  which 
bears  his  name. 

That  line  may  be  briefly  described  as  follows :  Beginning  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Amacuro,  it  follows  the  left  margin  of  that  river 
to  the  60th  meridian.  It  then  deflects  in  a  circuit  towards  Mt. 
Arikita  before  again  touching  the  60th  meridian,  which  it  does 
near  the  7th  parallel.  It  proceeds  thence  southwestward,  cross- 
ing the  Cuyuni  some  thirty-five  miles  below  the  mouth  of  the 
Acarabisi,  and  the  Mazaruni  at  the  Great  Bend,  to  Mt.  Iritibu. 
It  thence  proceeds  northeastward  to  Mt.  Roraima,  and  thence  in 
general  direction  northeast  towards  the  Essequibo,  apparently, 
however,  without  any  well-defined  terminus — thus  alloting  to 
Great  Britain  not  only  the  entire  Atlantic  coast  region  between 
the  Essequibo  and  the  Orinoco,  but  also  a  large  section  of  coun- 
try in  the  interior  between  the  Atlantic  coast  and  the  Imataca 
mountains.1 

1  This  was  the  original  "  Schomburgk  line."  It  has  since  been  extended,  from  time 
to  time,  to  suit  British  convenience.  Thus,  according  to  the  official  publications  of  the 
London  Geographical  Society,  the  difference  between  the  "  Schomburgk  line  "  as  it 
stood  in  1875,  and  as  it  stood  in  1895,  's  about  seventy  miles,  involving  a  difference  in 
area  of  about  ten  thousand  square  miles. 


23 

In  January,  1844,  when  more  moderate  counsels  prevailed,  the 
British  government  very  distinctly  disavowed  any  intention  to 
occupy  this  territory,  or  even  to  claim  the  "  Schomburgk  line  "  as 
a  possible  boundary.  Lord  Aberdeen,  then  Chief  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  apologetically  explained  to  the  Vene- 
zuelan envoy,  Dr.  Fortique,  that  the  so-called  Schomburgk  line 
was  never  designed  to  be  other  than  "  merely  tentative  "  ;  that  it 
had  been  marked  out  only  "  for  convenience  in  future  negotia- 
tions " ;  and  as  an  evidence  of  his  sincerity  he  officially  disclaimed 
it  in  toto,  and  ordered  its  complete  obliteration  by  the  Demerara 
authorities.  This  clearly  re-established  the  status  quo  ante,  and 
limited  the  disputed  territory  to  the  narrow  triangular  strip  of  land 
between  the  Essequibo  and  Moroco  rivers,  with  its  apex  near  the 
junction  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Essequibo.  Subsequently,  he  pro- 
posed a  boundary  line,  as  follows  :  Beginning  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Moroco  river  and  running  southward  in  general  direction  to  the 
junction  of  the  Barama  and  Aunama  rivers ;  thence  southeastward 
to  the  Lower  Cuyuni ;  thence  along  the  western  margin  of  the  last 
named  river  to  where  it  receives  the  waters  of  the  Yuruari ;  thence 
eastward,  following  the  general  direction  of  the  Cuyuni,  to  near 
Mt.  Roraima ;  and  thence  in  general  course  due  eastward  to  the 
Essequibo.1 

This  proposition,  though  very  disadvantageous  to  Venezuela,  in 
that  it  would  have  deprived  her  of  an  immense  territory  which 
rightfully  belonged  to  her,  would,  in  all  probability,  have  been 
accepted  as  a  compromise  had  it  been  made  in  a  different  spirit 
and  without  humiliating  conditions.  But,  in  substituting  it,  Lord 
Aberdeen  said  his  government  was  "disposed  to  cede  to  Vene- 
zuela" the  territory  beyond  the  line  indicated,  "on  the  condition 
that  she  would  enter  into  an  obligation  not  to  alienate  any  por- 
tion of  it  to  a  third  party " ;  and  on  the  further  condition  that 
"the  Indian  tribes  therein  be  not  oppressed  or  maltreated  "  by 
the  Venezuelan  authorities  !  As  this  involved  "an  acknowledg- 
ment of  territorial  rights  in   Guayana  which  Great  Britain  did  not 


1  See  map  in  "Off.  Hist.  Discus."    This  is  substantially  the  line  suggested  by  Mr.  E. 
F.  im  Thurn,  a  high  official  of  British  Guayana,  as  late  as  1881-2. 


24 

possess,  and  contained  besides  a  restriction  derogatory  to  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Republic,"  it  had  to  be  rejected.1 

Negotiations,  were,  however,  continued  until  the  sudden  death 
o.f  the  Venezuelan  envoy,  Dr.  Fortique,  when  they  were  resumed 
at  Caracas.  The  final  result  was  the  Diplomatic  Agreement  of 
1850,  by  which  each  party  was  obligated  not  to  occupy  any  part 
of  the  unoccupied  territory  in  dispute  till  the  question  of  boun- 
dary should  be  definitely  settled.2 

Where,  then,  was  this  "  unoccupied  territory  in  dispute"  ?  The 
question  is  an  important  one  in  view  of  events  which  followed. 
That  Venezuela  understood  it  to  be  limited  to  the  area  between 
the  Moroco  and  Essequibo,  already  described,  hardly  admits  of  a 
rational  doubt;  and  there  is  quite  as  little  doubt  that  the  British 
government  understood  the  Agreement  in  a  like  sense.  However, 
some  years  later,  under  change  of  administration,  each  party  ac- 
cused the  other  of  trespass,  and  of  thus  violating  the  compact 
of   1850. 

Thus  the  matter  stood  in  May,  1879,  when  Dr.  Rojas,  the  Ven- 
ezuelan minister  at  London,  addressed  a  note  to  Lord  Salisbury 
urging  some  pacific  termination  of  the  question  of  boundary,  inti- 
mating a  willingness,  at  the  same  time,  to  accept  any  compro- 
mise line  consistent  with  honor,  reason  and  justice,  and  request- 
ing the  submission  of  proposition  for  final  settlement. 

After  a  delay  of  nearly  eight  months,  Lord  Salisbury,  then 
Chief  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  replied,  in  a  note 
dated  January  10,  1880,  that,  as  any  discussion  of  the  legal  aspects 
of  the  question  would  not  be  likely  to  have  satisfactory  results, 
he  preferred  the  alternative  of  some  compromise  settlement.  He 
said  that  England  claimed,  "in  virtue  of  ancient  treaties  with  the 
aboriginal  tribes,"  and  of  "  subsequent  concessions  from  Holland," 
all  the  territory  on  the  coast  between  the  mouths  of  the  Essequibo 
and  Orinoco  rivers;  and  all  the  territory  in  the  interior  north  and 

1  But  even  these  conditions,  unjust  and  humiliating  as  they  were,  might  have  been 
accepted  for  the  sake  of  peaceful  settlement  but  for  the  fact  that  the  British  govern- 
ment refused  to  make  the  obligation  mutual.  (See  "  Brit.  Boundaries  of  Guayana," 
by  Ur.  R.  F.  Seijas,  pp.  170,  176  ;  also  Official  Memorandum  by  Dr.  Rafael  Seijas,  of 
July  15,  1882.) 

sSee  "Official  Hist,  of  the  Discussion." 


25 

east  of  a  line  from  Point  Barima  to  the  mountains  of  Imataca,  and 
thence  to  the  table-lands  of  Santa  Maria,  the  Coroni  river,  and  the 
mountains  of  Roraima  and  Picaraima !  That  is  to  say,  the  claim 
had  so  grown  as  to  include  not  only  all  the  territory  within  the 
original  "Schomburgk  line,"  so  distinctly  disclaimed  by  Lord 
Aberdeen  in  1844,  but  a  vast  and  fertile  region  many  leagues  be- 
yond it.  Referring  to  Venezuela's  claim  that  the  Essequibo  river 
was  the  ancient  boundary  between  the  Dutch  and  Spanish  posses- 
sions, he  said  Great  Britain  already  had  some  "  forty  thousand 
subjects  "  living  west  of  that  river,  and  that  it  could  not  be  consid- 
ered as  a  possible  boundary;  but  that  he  would  consider  any 
feasible  proposition  of  compromise  that  might  be  submitted 
by  the  Venezuelan  government.  ' 

Dr.  Rojas  replied,  April  12th,  that  he  was  authorized  to  waive 
the  question  of  strict  legal  right,  and  to  adjust  the  dispute  on 
some  basis  of  compromise.  He  therefore  inquired  whether  the 
British  government  was  then  disposed,  as  it  has  been  as  late  as 
1844,  to  accept  the  Moroco  river  as  a  conventional  boundary  line. 

Lord  Salisbury  replied,  some  two  weeks  later,  that  the  Attorney- 
General  of  British  Guayana  was  expected  in  London  very  soon, 
and  that  it  was  desirable  to  postpone  the  discussion  until  his 
arrival. 

The  Attorney-General  did  not  arrive  until  November  following; 
and  it  was  not  until  February  of  the  next  year  that  Dr.  Rojas 
received  Lord  Salisbury's  reply,  which  was,  in  substance,  that  he 
could  not  accept  the  Moroco  river  as  the  boundary  on  the  coast, 
but  would  consider  any  conventional  line  beginning  further  west- 
ward. 

Nine  days  later  Dr.  R.ojas  proposed,  as  a  compromise,  a  con- 
ventional boundary  line  beginning  on  the  coast  one  mile  west- 
ward of  the  mouth  of  the  Moroco,  extending  thence  westward 
to  the  sixtieth  meridian,  and  thence  in  general  direction  eastward 

1This  proposition  by  Lord  Salisbury  is  a  most  astounding  one,  not  only  from  a  his- 
torical point  of  view,  but  no  less  so  from  the  legal  aspects  of  the  case.  Reasons  of 
mere  internal  convenience  maybe  applicable  in  a  division  of  property  held  jointly  ;  but 
they  are  hardly  applicable  in  cases  like  this,  where  the  question  at  issue  is  one  of  boun- 
dary between  two  contiguous  free  States.  Still  less  is  it  applicable  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  one  of  the  parties  to  take  advantage  of  its  own  wrong. 


26 

to  the  Essequibo  river.  In  submitting  this  proposition,  he  said 
that  in  case  it  should  not  be  accepted,  he  saw  no  prospect  of 
settlement  except  by  friendly  arbitration  of  the  whole  question, 
which  he  then  proposed. 

A  change  of  ministry  soon  followed,  and  Lord  Granville,  as 
the  successor  of  Salisbury,  declined  to  consider  Dr.  Rojas's  prop- 
osition; but  in  a  personal  conference  which  followed,  in  Septem- 
ber, 1 88 1,  his  lordship  proposed,  as  a  substitute,  the  follow- 
ing line: 

Beginning  twenty-nine  miles  northeast  of  the  mouth  of  the 
river  Moroco,  and  running  thence  southward  to  the  crest  of  Mt. 
Yarikita,  on  the  eighth  parallel,  north  latitude;  thence  west,  south 
west  to  a  point  near  where  the  original  Schomburgk  line  crosses  the 
Acarabisi  river;  thence  along  the  Acarabisi  to  its  confluence  with 
the  Cuyuni;  thence  along  the  Cuyuni  to  near  its  source;  and  thence 
in  direct  line  eastward  to  a  point  where  the  Schomburgk  line 
intersects  the  Essequibo.  1 

As  this  could  not  be  accepted  by  Venezuela,  Dr.  Rojas  again 
proposed  arbitration.      This  met  with  no  immediate  response. 

As  late  as  1885,  the  British  government  agreed  to  unite  the 
boundary  dispute  with  the  controversies  growing  out  of  the 
thirty  per  cent,  duty  on  imports  from  the  British  Antilles  and 
certain  indemnity  claims  by  British  subjects  against  Venezuela, 
and  to  refer  the  whole  to  arbitration.2  But  a  change  of  ministry 
occurred  soon  afterwards  ;  and  Lord  Salisbury,  who  had  again 
came  into  power,  flatly  refused  to  ratify  the  agreement  of  his  im- 
mediate predecessor,  made  only  seventy-two  days  before!3 

Subsequently,  when  Venezuela  again  recalled  attention  to  the 
boundary  dispute,  and  again  proposed  its  reference  to  arbitra- 
tion, Lord  Rosebery,  who  had  become  Chief  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs,  proposed  a  conventional  boundary  line,4 
coupled  with  a  condition  that  the  Orinoco  river  be  declared  open 

1See  map  in  Official  Hist,  of  the  Discussion. 

aSee  Earl  Granville's  note  dated  May  15,  1885,  to  Gen.  Guzman  Blanco.     "Official 
Hist.  Discus,"  etc. 

3  See  Lord  Salisbury's  note  of  July  27,  1885,  to  Gen.  Guzman  Blanco,  Off.  Hist.  Dis. 
*See  map  in  "Official  History  of  the  Discussion,"  etc. 


27 

and  free  to  British  merchant  vessels.  This  was  rejected  by  the 
Venezuelan  government,  which  again  proposed  arbitration. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Demerara  authorities  took  formal  pos- 
session of  all  the  territory  within  the  "Schomburgk  line";  and 
in  1885-6,  the  British  government  established  fortifications  at 
Barima  Point,  and  posted  notices  at  the  mouth  of  the  Amacuro 
river,  announcing  that  the  whole  country  was  within  British 
jurisdiction  !  Venezuela,  now  thoroughly  alarmed,  demanded 
the  immediate  evacuation  of  these  places  and  the  restoration  of 
the  status  quo  of  1850,  in  order  that  the  question  of  boundary  as 
a  whole  might  be  properly  submitted  to  arbitration.  These 
demands  were  not  complied  with,  and  the  proposition  to  refer 
the  dispute  to  arbitration  was  received  with  haughty  indifference. 
The  result  was  that,  in  February,  1887,  Venezuela  declared  all 
diplomatic  relations  with  England  suspended. 

Since  then,  however,  Venezuela  has  made  repeated  efforts  to 
have  the  status  quo  of  1850  re-established,  and  the  question  of 
boundary  referred  to  friendly  arbitration.  Thus  in  1891,  she 
commissioned  Dr.  Lucio  Pulido,  one  of  her  most  distinguished 
citizens,  as  Plenipotentiary  ad  hoc,  and  as  Envoy  Extraordinay 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  the  English  government.  In 
the  character  first  named,  he  was  authorized  to  re-establish 
diplomatic  relations,  if  happily  that  might  be  accomplished 
through  the  good  offices  of  the  United  States,  which  had  been 
previously  tendered;  in  which  case,  he  was  to  at  once  assume 
the  character  last  named,  and  open  negotiations  for  the  final  set- 
tlement of  the  boundary  dispute  by  friendly  arbitration.  In 
case  the  British  government  should  refuse  to  entertain  these 
overtures,  he  was  instructed  to  say,  first  orally,  and  then  in  an  offi- 
cial note,  that  "Venezuela  might  have  to  submit,  as  France  had 
done,  to  dismemberment  by  war  in  which  she  might  be  overcome 
by  superior  force,  without,  however,  surrendering  her  right  of 
recovery;  but  that  in  no  case  would  she  submit  to  such  dismem- 
berment in  time  of  peace  by  systematic  usurpations  of  her  ter- 
ritory."1    His  mission  failed  and   he  returned  home.     But  yet 

1  Libro  Amarilla  of  Venezuela,  1891,  series  B.  C.  V.;  also  "Official  History  of 
the  Discussion,"  etc. 


28 

again,  as  late  as  May,  1893,  Venezuela  proposed  (through  her 
confidential  agent  at  London,  Dr.  Michelena)  a  preliminary 
agreement  on  the  following  basis : 

1.  Renewal  of  official  relations;  after  which  each  Govern- 
ment to  appoint  one  or  more  delegates  invested  with  full  powers 
to  negotiate  a  treaty  of  boundaries;  all  points  of  difference  on 
which  the  delegates  might  not  be  able  to  agree,  to  be  referred  to 
an  arbiter  juris,  to  be  named  by  mutual  concert  of  both  Govern- 
ments: 

2.  Venezuela  to  agree  to  the  conclusion  of  a  new  treaty  of 
commerce  revoking  the  thirty  per  cent,  duty  on  imports  from 
the  British  West  Indies,  and  substituting  a  duty  of  limited  dura- 
tion, such  as  that  proposed  by  Lord  Granville  in  1884-5: 

3.  All  existing  claims  by  British  subjects  against  Venezuela  to 
be  referred  to  a  commission  ad  hoc ;  all  such  claims  arising  in 
the  future  to  be  adjudicated  by  the  Federal  Supreme  Court,  as 
the  Constitution  of  the  Republic  provides: 

4.  Both  Governments  to  acknowledge  and  declare  the  status 
quo  of  1850;  the  same  to  be  maintained  until  the  boundary 
question  should  be  finally  settled  as  provided  for  in  item 
number  1 : 

5.  The  preliminary  agreement,  on  the  basis  thus  indicated,  to 
be  forthwith  submitted  to  the  ratification  of  both  Governments ;. 
and  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  the  diplomatic  relations 
between  them  to  be  considered  re-established  ipso  facto} 

This  proposition  was  not  replied  to  by  Lord  Rosebery  until 
the  3d  of  July  following,  and  then  only  in  part.  He  objected  to 
it  on  the  ground  that  it  involved  a  reference  to  arbitration, 
"which  practically  reduced  it  to  a  form  which  had  been  repeat- 
edly declined  by  Great  Britain."  As  to  the  status  quo  of  1850, 
"that,"  he  said,  "was  quite  impossible;  Great  Britain  declined 
to  evacuate  what  had  been  for  years  constituted  an  integral 
portion  of  British  Guinea."  He  could  accept  no  status  quo,  "ex- 
cept that  now  existing."      He  therefore  proposed  that  both  gov- 

1  Memorandum  by  Jose  Andrade,  Venezuelan  minister  at  Washington,  March  31, 
1894,  published  in  "Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,"  pp.  810-840:  also- 
"  Official  History  of  the  Discussion,"  etc. 


From  Harper's  Weekly. 


Copyrighted,  1895,  by  Harper  &  Brothers. 


29 

ernments  agree  (as  soon  as  official  relations  should  be  re-estab- 
lished) that  one  or  more  delegates  be  named  by  each  with  full 
power  to  conclude  a  frontier  treaty  ;  "it  being  agreed  that 
the  territory  in  dispute  lies  west  of  the  line  laid  down  in  the 
map  communicated  to  the  Government  of  Venezuela  on  the  19th 
of  March,  1890,1  and  to  the  east  of  a  line,  to  be  marked  on  said 
map,  running  from  the  source  of  the  river  Cumano  down  that 
stream  and  up  the  Aima,  and  so  along  the  Sierra  of  Usupamo, 
and  that  the  decision  of  doubtful  points,  and  the  laying  down  of 
a  frontier  on  the  line  of  which  the  delegates  may  be  unable  to 
agree,  shall  be  submitted  to  the  final  decision  of  a  judicial  arbi- 
trator, to  be  appointed,  should  the  case  arise,  by  common  agree- 
ment between  the  two  governments."2 

An  examination  of  the  map  here  referred  to  shows  this  propo- 
sition to  have  been  simply  monstrous.  Its  acceptance  could  not 
have  been  expected.  It  was  very  much  less  favorable  to  Vene- 
zuela than  that  made  to  Dr.  Pulido  by  Lord  Salisbury  in  1890, 
which,  in  its  turn,  was  very  much  less  favorable  than  that  made 
by  Lord  Rosebery  himself  in  1886.  Having  rejected  both  of 
these,  Venezuela  could  not  accept  a  third  which  was  infinitely 
more  objectionable  than  either.  Dr.  Michelena,  however,  in 
communicating  his  refusal,  expressed  a  hope  that  the  British 
government  would  consent  to  resume  the  discussion  of  a  pre- 
liminary agreement  with  a  view  to  friendly  arbitration  of  the 
whole  question  at  issue. 

In  his  reply,  dated  September  the  12th,  Lord  Rosebery  said 
that  it  did  not  appear  to  Her  Majesty's  government  that  there 
was  a  way  open  for  any  agreement  which  they  could  accept  con- 


1  See  map,  reproduced  in  miniature,  on  opposite  page. 

2  Translated  into  plain  language,  the  proposition  was  about  this  :  That  Great  Britain's 
monstrous  claim  to  the  territory  in  dispute  be  conceded  as  a  condition  precedent  to  the 
arbitration  of  the  question  as  to  whether  Venezuela  is  entitled  to  any  territory  in 
Guavana  not  hitherto  in  dispute !  When  the  British  official  publication  known  as  the 
Statesman 's  Year  Book,  came  out  in  1877,  it  gave  the  area  of  British  Guinea  at  76,000 
square  miles.  When  the  same  publication  came  out  some  years  later,  it  placed  that 
area  at  109,000  square  miles.  This  was  certainly  a  convenient  method  of  acquiring 
33,000  square  miles  of  territory,  the  title  to  which  must  be  regarded  as  too  sacred  to  be 
inquired  into  by  an  arbitral  commission  ! 


30 

cerning  the  question  of  boundary,  but  that  they  were  disposed 
to  give  "their  best  attention  to  any  practicable  proposals  that 
might  be  offered,"  etc. 

On  the  29th  of  the  same  month,  Dr.  Michelena  replied  to 
this,  expressing  his  deep  regret  that  the  condition  of  affairs  re- 
mained subject  to  the  serious  disturbances  which  the  de  facto  oc- 
cupancy and  arbitrary  proceedings  of  Great  Britain  could  hardly 
fail  to  produce  ;  and  protested,  in  the  name  of  his  government, 
that  Venezuela  would  never  consent  that  such  occupancy  and 
proceedings  should  be  adduced  in  evidence  to  legitimize  an  usur- 
pation of  her  territorial  rights  and  jurisdiction. 

Thus  ended  the  last  effort  at  direct  negotiations  between  the 
two  governments  looking  to  some  satisfactory  termination  of 
the  controversy. 

V. 

From  this  brief  review  of  the  case,  it  will  be  observed  that, 
previous  to  the  year  1840,  Great  Britain  had  not  extended  her 
occupancy  beyond  the  Moroco  river,  nor  even  intimated  a  pur- 
pose to  lay  claim  to  any  territory  beyond  it.  Suddenly,  in  the 
latter  part  of  that  year,  she  made  an  attempt  to  extend  her  oc- 
cupancy westward  and  southward  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the 
Amacura  river,  where  she  arbitrarily  fixed  the  starting  point  of 
a  frontier  line.  In  1844,  she  receded  from  this  position,  dis- 
claimed the  Schomburgk  line,  ordered  it  obliterated,  and  pro- 
posed what  afterwards  became  known  as  "the  Aberdeen  line," 
beginning  near  the  mouth  of  the  Moroco  river.  In  1881,  she 
again  removed  the  starting  point  of  a  divisional  line  to  a  distance 
of  twenty-nine  miles  west  of  the  Moroco  river,  generally  referred 
to  as  "Lord  Granville's  line."  In  1886,  she  again  shifted  posi- 
tion and  proposed  what  is  known  as  "the  first  Rosebery  line," 
beginning  west  of  the  Guaima  river.  In  1890,  she  shifted  posi- 
tion again  and  proposed  "the  Salisbury  line,"  beginning  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Amacuro  river — thus  claiming  control  of  the  main 
outlet  of  the  Orinoco.  Finally,  in  1893,  still  advancing  west- 
ward and  southward  into  what  had  never  before  been  disputed 


31 

as  Venezuelan  territory,  she  proposed  a  boundary  line  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Amacuro  river,  running  so  as  to  include  the 
headwaters  of  the  Cumano  and  the  Sierra  of  Usupamo.1 

These  facts  carry  their  own  comment.  Studied  in  connection 
with  any  good  map  of  the  country,  they  have  a  startling  signifi- 
cance. The  South  American  continent,  by  its  peculiar  configu- 
ration, is  naturally  divided  into  three  immense  valleys — the  Ori- 
noco, the  Amazon,  and  the  Plata.  Each  of  these  valleys  is,  in 
itself,  a  complete  network  of  fluviatile  navigation,  open  from  the 
sea  to  the  remote  interior.  Those  of  the  Guayaquil,  Atrato,  and 
Magdalena  are  of  but  little  consequence  in  comparison,  for  the 
chain  of  the  Andes,  extending  from  Patagonia  along  the  Pacific, 
and  thence  eastward  along  the  Caribbean  to  the  Gulf  of  Paria, 
constitute  a  natural  barrier  to  the  interior.  But  there  are  no 
mountain  chains  traversing  the  continent  from  east  to  west;  no 
such  barriers  to  communication  between  the  great  valleys  of  the 
Orinoco,  Amazon,  and  Plata;  and  those  three  immense  rivers 
communicate  by  distinct  bifurcations.  Hence  the  dominion  of 
the  mouth  of  either  by  such  a  power  as  Great  Britain  would,  in 
the  course  of  time,  and  almost  as  a  natural  consequence,  open 
the  way  to  pretensions  over  the  others. 

But,  to  keep  strictly  within  the  range  of  the  present  discussion, 
take,  for  example,  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  so  long  coveted 
by  England.  That  immense  river  is  navigable  by  the  heaviest 
naval  vessels  as  far  up  as  the  city  of  Bolivar,  nearly  four  hundred 
miles  from  the  ocean;  and  within  this  distance  the  river  receives 
the  waters  of  some  twenty  other  navigable  streams.  Above  that 
point  the  Orinoco  receives,  on  its  eastern  side  alone,  some  ninety 
other    rivers,  one  of  which  is  navigable  to  the  Rio  Negro,  and 


1  Speaking  of  this  last  phase  of  this  flexible  British  claim,  and  which  led  to  the  rup- 
ture of  1887,  Mr.  Bayard,  then  Secretary  of  State,  in  an  instruction  to  Mr.  Phelps,  the 
U.  S.  Minister  at  London,  said  :  "  The  claim  now  stated  to  have  been  put  forth  by  the 
authorities  of  British  Guinea  necessarily  gives  rise  to  grave  disquietude,  and  creates  an 
apprehension  that  the  territorial  claim  does  not  follow  historical  traditions  or  evidence, 

but  is  apparently  indefinite If,  indeed,  it  should  appear  there  is  no  fixed 

limit  to  the  British  boundary  claim,  our  good  disposition  to  aid  in  a  settlement  might 
not  only  be   defeated,  but  be  obliged    to  give  place  to    a  feeling  of  grave  concern." 
(SeeU.  S.  "Foreign  Relations.") 
3  v 


32 

thence  to  the  navigable  affluents  of  the  Amazon;  while  on  its 
western  side,  above  the  point  named,  it  receives  the  waters  of 
thirty-one  more,  many  of  which  are  navigable,  and  extend  to  the 
far  interior  of  the  continent.  Thus,  the  Apure,  which  traverses 
the  very  heart  of  Venezuela,  is  navigable  for  about  four  hundred 
miles  from  its  mouth  and  has  its  source  in  the  great  central  range 
of  the  Andes  near  the  Colombian  border.  The  Meta,  which  is 
navigable  as  far  up  as  Villavicencia,  only  a  few  leagues  from  the 
city  of  Bogota,  has  its  source  in  the  center  of  the  Republic  of 
Colombia.  The  Guariare,  another  navigable  river,  has  its  source 
in  the  central  range  of  the  Andes;  and  the  Inriade,  another  con- 
siderable river,  extends  to  within  a  few  miles  of  the  Colombian 
and  Brazilian  borders. 

It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  navigable  outlet  of  the 
Orinoco  is  the  key  to  more  than  a  quarter  of  the  whole  continent; 
and  that  its  dominion  by  Great  Britain  could  hardly  fail,  in  the 
course  of  a  few  decades,  to  work  radical  changes  m  the  commer- 
cial relations  and  political  institutions  of  at  least  three  of  the 
South  American  republics. 

Take  another  feature  of  the  controversy,  not  very  conspicuous 
in  itself,  but  which  may  serve  to  interpret  the  motives  behind  these 
British  aggressions  in  the  Orinoco  valley.  In  1802,  England's 
military  occupancy  of  the  island  of  Trinidad  was  confirmed  by 
the  treaty  of  Amiens,  and  thus  became  de  jure  as  well  as  de  facto 
British  territory.  On  the  extreme  northwest  side  of  the  gulf  of 
Paria,  near  its  navigable  entrance  from  the  Atlantic,  is  a  small, 
uninhabited  island,  known  as  Patos,  or  "  Duck  island."  It  is  very 
much  nearer  the  mainland  than  it  is  to  the  island  of  Trinidad, 
and  had  always  been  regarded  as  Venezuelan  territory.1  But  in 
1859,  very  much  to  the  surprise  of  everybody,  the  British  colonial 
authorities  of  Trinidad  demanded  the  surrender  of  some  smug- 
gling crafts  which    had  been  captured  there.     The  Trinidad  au- 


1  The  West  India  Atlas,"  compiled  from  "official  surveys,"  and  published  by  Whittle 
and  Lowrie,  London,  in  1878,  shows  the  island  of  Patos  to  be  on  the  extreme  west  (or 
Venezuelan)  side  of  the  western  navigable  channel  of  Boca  de  Dragos,  and  that  the 
island  is  at  least  a  third  nearer  the  Venezuelan  mainland  than  it  is  even  to  the  little 
island  of  Cachacarrea,  off  the  west  coast  of  Trinidad. 


33 

thorities  attempted  to  justify  this  extraordinary  demand  by  the 
plea  that  Patos  had  been  previously  leased  by  the  municipality 
of  the  Port-of-Spain  to  some  British  subjects!  In  the  course  of 
the  diplomatic  correspondence  which  followed,  the  island  of  Patos 
was  boldly  claimed  as  British  territory,  on  the  pretension  that  its 
dominion  was  included  in  the  cession  of  1802.  The  absurdity 
of  this  claim  is  manifest  from  the  very  terms  of  the  treaty  itself; 
for  the  cession  was  limited  to  "the  island  of  Trinidad."  Nor 
can  the  claim  be  established  on  the  principle  of  proximity;  for 
it  is  a  generally  recognized  doctrine  that  small  islands  in  the  sea 
belong  to  the  nearest  continent.  All  standard  authorities  are 
agreed  that  the  territory  of  a  nation  includes  the  islands  sur- 
rounded by  its  waters,  and  that  its  dominion  over  its  seacoast  is 
coextensive  with  the  projectile  range  of  its  weapons.  Moreover, 
it  was  this  very  principle,  namely,  that  islands  in  the  sea  belong 
to  the  nearest  continent,  which  caused  the  ownership  of  the 
island  of  Aves  to  be  decided  in  favor  of  Venezuela  in  1865,  not- 
withstanding the  proximity  of  that  island  to  two  Dutch  islands 
and  its  very  great  distance  from  the  Venezuelan  coast.  The 
question  of  ownership  having  been  raised,  was  referred  to  arbitra- 
tion; and  the  principal  arguments  adduced,  and  those  on  which 
the  decision  was  based,  were,  that  the  island  was  discovered  by 
the  Spaniards,  that  the  Venezuelan  coast  was  the  nearest  continent, 
and  that  these  facts  gave  title  to  Venezuela  as  the  successor  of 
Spain. 

While  the  little  island  of  Patos  may  be  of  insignificant  value,  it  is 
so  situated  as  to  command  an  available  entrance  to  the  gulf  of 
Paria  from  the  Atlantic,  and  is,  therefore,  in  a  very  important 
sense,  the  key  to  the  gulf  which  commands  the  Orinoco  delta, 
hence  the  attempt  to  wrest  it  from  its  legitimate  owner  should  be 
considered  in  connection  with  the  efforts  to  obtain  control  of 
that  great  river. 

VI. 

Through  considerations  of  prudence,  Venezuela  has  not  hith- 
erto   sought  to  repel   these  aggressions    by  the    means  usually 


34 

adopted  in  the  last  resort.  She  has  preferred  rather  to  suffer 
temporary  inconvenience  and  wrong,  and  to  appeal  to  the  moral 
sense  of  the  civilized  world,  hoping  that  some  honorable  termi- 
nation of  the  dispute  by  arbitration  might  be  brought  about 
through  the  mediation  of  friendly  powers. 

The  United  States  government  has  not  been  indifferent  to 
these  appeals ;  nor  could  it  afford  to  be  in  view  of  its  well 
known  policy  and  traditions  relative  to  the  South  American 
republics.  Time  and  again,  it  has  delicately  and  courteously 
tendered  its  good  offices  as  the  impartial  friend  of  both  parties. 
It  has  gone  further  and  made  formal  offer  of  its  services  as  arbi- 
trator, if  acceptable  to  both  parties.  And  it  did  this  with  the 
less  hesitancy  because  the  dispute  turns  exclusively  upon  simple 
and  readily  ascertainable  historal  facts.  Ten  of  the  other  Amer- 
ican Republics — to  wit:  Mexico,  Chili,  Colombia,  Ecuador,  the 
Argentine,  Guatamala,  Salvador,  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  and 
Hayti — not  to  mention  Spain,  one  of  the  oldest  monarchies  of 
Europe — have  each  separately  addressed  the  British  government 
in  a  like  sense.  And  one  of  the  very  last  public  acts  of  the 
Fifty-third  Congress  of  the  United  States  was  the  passage,  with- 
out a  dissenting  vote  in  either  House,  of  a  Joint  Resolution  earn- 
estly recommending,  specifically  and  by  name,  the  reference  of 
this  identical  boundary  dispute  in  Guayana  to  friendly  and  im- 
partial arbitration.1 

Briefly  summarized,  the  historical  facts  upon  which  the  adverse 
parties  predicate  their  respective  claims  are  as  follows: 

i.  Venezuela,  as  the  legal  successor  in  title  of  Spain,  supports 
her  claim  by  the  Spanish  colonial  archives,  of  Seville,  covering  a 
period  of  nearly  three  hundred  years  from  the  date  of  the  first 


1  H.  Res.  252,  53d  Cong.,  3d  Ses.;  Approved  Feb.  20,  1895.  The  text  of  the  Reso- 
lution (omitting  the  preamble,  which  had  been  passed  by  the  House,  but  was  stricken 
out  by  the  Senate)  is  as  follows: 

"Joint  Res.  No.  14,  relative  to  the  British-Guiana-Venezuela  boundary  dispute. 

"  Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  President's  suggestion,  made  in  his  last  annual  mes- 
sage to  this  body,  namely,  that  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  refer  their  dispute  as  to 
boundary  to  friendly  arbitration,  be  earnestly  recommended  to  the  favorable  consider- 
ation of  both  the  parties  in  interest." 


35 

discovery  of  the  country;  by  the  treaty  of  Mlinster  of  1648;  by 
the  treaty  of  Utrecht  of  171 3;  by  the  note  of  the  Governor  of 
Cumina,  to  the  municipal  Council,  of  February  I,  1742;  by  the 
treaty  of  1750,  between  the  Portuguese  and  Spaniards;  by  the 
reply  of  the  Governor  of  Cumana  to  the  note  of  the  Director- 
General  of  the  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo,  dated  September  30, 
1758;  by  the  two  Royal  Cedules  of  1768;  by  the  official  dec- 
laration of  the  Spanish  Cabinet  in  1769,  rejecting  the  pretension 
of  right  by  the  Dutch  to  fish  near  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  ; 
by  the  instructions  of  the  Royal  Intendency  in  1779,  for  peo- 
pling eastern  Guayana ;  by  the  Royal  Order  of  1780,  directing 
the  founding  of  the  town  of  Don  Carlos;  by  the  official  Report 
of  Don  Antonio  Lopez  de  la  Puente,  commissioner  for  the  ex- 
ploration of  the  Cuyuni  river,  February  26,  1788;  by  the  treaty 
of  Aranjuez,  of  June  23,  1 79 1 ,  between  Spain  and  Holland;  by 
the  note  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  to 
the  Spanish  minister  in  Holland,  January  8,  1794;  by  the  treaty 
of  August  13,  1 8 14,  between  England  and  Holland;  by  the  offi- 
cial request,  made  in  writing,  by  the  British  minister  at  Caracas, 
Mav  26,  1836,  that  Venezuela  would  establish  lighthouses  and 
beacons  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  and  at  Barima  Point,  thereby 
acknowledging  Venezuelan  jurisdiction ;  by  the  official  dis- 
patch of  the  Governor  of  Demerara,  September  1,  1838;  by 
the  note  of  the  Venezuelan  Governor  of  Guayana  to  the  federal 
government  at  Caracas,  dated  August  23,  1841,  attesting  the 
acknowledgment,  by  a  British  law  court  in  Demerara,  of  Vene- 
zuela's rightful  jurisdiction  over  the  Moroco  river ;  by  a  similar 
act  of  recognition  as  late  as  1874,  growing  out  of  a  homicide 
committed  by  a  British  subject  named  Thomas  Garret ;  by  the 
apologetic  disclaimer  of  the  Schomburgk  line  made  to  Dr.  For- 
tique  by  Lord  Aberdeen,  January  31,  1842;  by  the  Aberdeen 
proposition  of  1844;  and  in  short,  by  the  publications  of  every 
explorer,  geographer,  cartographer  and  historian  who  has  ever 
written  on  the  subject,  from  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  and  Captain 
Kevmis  to  Noire  and  Humboldt. 

2.   Great  Britain,  as  successor  in  title  of  Holland,  supports  her 
claim  to  the  same  territory  by  the  alleged  fact  that  two  forts,  called 


36 

"New  Zealand"  and  "  New  Middleburgh,"  were  erected  by  the 
Dutch  on  the  Pumaron  river  in  1657;  by  alleging  Dutch  settle- 
ments or  "  posts  "  in  the  Cuyuni  valley  ;  by  concessions  granted 
by  a  Dutch  Company,  as  successor,  in  1674,  of  the  Dutch  West 
India  Company,  for  trading  with  the  colonies  of  Essequibo  and  Pu- 
maron ;  by  a  reputed  battle  between  the  Dutch  and  Spaniards  at  fort 
"New  Zealand"  in  1797,  in  which,  it  is  claimed,  the  latter  were 
defeated  and  driven  away  ;  by  some  alleged  concessions  from  Hol- 
land subsequent  to  the  cession  of  1814;  and  by  some  pretended 
treaties  with  native  Indian  tribes  (names  and  dates  not  given) 
whereby  she  claims  to  have  obtained  title  to  the  soil  and  sover- 
eignty over  the  territory  j1  and,  more  recently,  by  de  facto  occupa- 
tion and  settlement  of  certain  districts  in  the  disputed  territory. 

Surely  nothing  could  be  more  natural,  or  simple,  or  fair,  or  more 
in  accordance  with  modern  international  usage  than  the  reference 
of  a  dispute  like  this  to  friendly  and  impartial  arbitration.  Such 
controversies  are  in  constant  process  of  settlement  by  joint  com- 
mission or  by  outside  friendly  arbitration;  and  this  is  all  that 
Venezuela  asks,  or  has  ever  asked  since  1844.  Conscious  of  the 
inherent  justice  of  her  case,  she  is  ready  to  rest  it  upon  the  his- 
torical evidence  adduced,  and  to  scrupulously  abide  by  a  decision 
of  an  impartial  tribunal. 

How  very  different  has  been  the  attitude  of  England!  As  if 
conscious  of  the  monstrous  injustice  and  inherent  weakness  of  her 
claim,  she  persistently  refuses  to  submit  it  to  arbitration.  And, 
disregarding  all  remonstrances,  rejecting  all  offers  of  friendly  me- 
diation, and  apparently  indifferent  to  the  opinion  of  the  civilized 
world,  she  has,  by  a  long  series  of  encroachments,  absorbed  not 

^his  seems  almost  incredible;  yet  see  Lord  Salisbury's  note  to  Dr.  Rojas,  January  10, 
1880.  The  date  and  character  of  those  "subsequent  concessions  from  Holland"  are 
strangely  omitted.  Holland's  title  to  the  colonies  of  Demerara,  Essequibo,  and  Ber- 
bice  was  in  virtue  of  the  treaty  of  Munster,  of  1648.  These,  and  these  only,  were 
ceded  to  England  by  the  treaty  of  18 1 4  ;  Holland  retaining  only  the  colony  of  Suri- 
nam, to  the  eastward,  which  she  still  owns.  As  she  had  no  settlements  west  of  the 
Essequibo  colony,  nor  subsequently  acquired  any,  it  is  not  quite  clear  how  she  could 
have  made  "  subsequent  concessions  "  of  what  she  never  possessed.  As  to  England's 
claim  to  territory  "in  virtue  of  ancient  treaties  with  aboriginal  tribes,"  that  can  hardly 
be  taken  seriously.  She  might,  with  quite  as  much  reason,  set  up  a  claim  to  Oregon 
and  Alaska,  or  in  fact  to  any  portion  of  the  western  domain  of  the  United  States. 
(See  supra,  p.  16.) 


37   . 

only  the  whole  of  the  territory  originally  in  dispute,  but  extended 
her  occupancy  far  beyond  it,  and  set  up  a  de  facto  government 
within  what  she  herself  has  more  than  once,  and  in  more  forms 
than  one,  acknowledged  to  be  Venezuelan  territory.1 

In  view  of  these  facts,  so  easy  of  verification,  the  matter  has 
become  one  of  very  grave  concern,  not  only  to  all  South  Amer- 
icans, but  to  the  people  of  this  country  as  well.  The  principle 
here  contended  for  by  England,  namely,  that  territorial  sov- 
ereignty and  dominion  were  transmitted  to  her  by  "ancient treaties 
with  aboriginal  tribes,"  would,  if  once  admitted,  unsettle  titles  to 
half  the  continent.  It  would  not  only  destroy  the  territorial  in- 
tegrity and  sovereignty  of  nearly  all  the  South  American  repub- 
lics, but  would  invalidate  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  ter- 
ritory of  many  of  our  present  commonwealths,  and  to  more  than 
half  our  public  domain  in  the  northwest. 

Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  also  that  the  country  which  is  being 
thus  ruthlessly  despoiled  of  its  territorial  sovereignty  is  not  in  some 
remote  and  inaccessible  corner  of  the  earth  with  which  we  neither 
have,  nor  hope  to  have,  any  very  direct  political  or  commercial 
relations.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  nearest  of  all  our  South 
American  neighbors.  Its  political  capital,  one  of  the  most  beau- 
tiful and  attractive  on  the  continent,  is  less  than  six  days'  journey 
from  Washington  city.  Its  commercial  marts,  second  to  none  on 
the  Caribbean  shores,  are  directly  opposite  ours  on  the  South 
Atlantic  and  Gulf  coasts,  and  distant  from  them  less  than  five 
days'  sail.  Even  the  harbors  and  inlets  of  Guayana  and  the 
Orinoco  delta  are  only  about  five  and  a  half  days'  sail  from 
New  York.  It  is  the  only  South  American  republic  with  which 
we  are  in  direct  and  regular  weekly  communication  by  an  Ameri- 
can line  of  steamships.  Its  people  are  among  the  most  intelligent 
and  progressive  in  all  Latin  America.  And  our  commerce  with 
it  is  now  about  double  in  bulk  and  value  of  our  trade  with  any  of 
the  other  trans-Caribbean  free  States.  These  conditions  alone, 
even  if  others  were  wanting,  could  hardly  fail  to  inspire  our  sym- 
pathy and  enlist  our  active  interposition. 

But  there  are  higher  considerations  than  these.      All  standard 

'See  "Official  Hist.  Discus,  of  the  Boundary  Ouestion,"  containing  all  the  early  cor- 
respondence on  the  subject. 


■    38 

authorities  are  agreed  that  when  the  territorial  acquisitions  and 
foreign  relations  of  a  nation  threaten  the  peace  and  safety  of 
other  states,  the  right  of  intervention  is  complete.  It  then 
becomes  a  moral  duty  to  interfere  to  prevent  the  threatened 
mischief,  rather  than  wait  till  the  mischief  is  accomplished  and 
then  interpose  to  remedy  it.  "It  is,"  says  a  high  English 
authorrity,  "  only  the  shortsighted  and  vulgar  politician  who  holds 
that  a  nation  has  no  concern  with  the  acts  of  its  neighbors,  and 
that  if  the  wrong  be  done  to  others  and  not  directly  to  itself,  it 
cannot  afford  to  interfere."1  The  stupidity  of  such  a  policy  has 
been  sometimes  illustrated  in  modern  history,  but  never  as  yet  in 
the  history  of  the  United  States.  Early  in  the  beginning  of  the 
present  century,  inspired  by  our  successful  example,  the  Spanish- 
American  colonies  threw  off  the  yoke  of  European  serfdom,  and 
became  free  and  independent  States.  Very  soon  thereafter,  an 
Alliance  was  formed  by  the  three  principal  powers  of  Europe, 
the  ulterior  purpose  of  which  was  the  reconquest  of  those  colo- 
nies and  their  partition  among  the  signatory  powers.  This  bold 
scheme  was  defeated,  and  the  new  Republics  saved  from  the 
fate  of  Poland  only  by  the  timely  and  determined  intervention 
of  the  United  States.  That  was  at  a  time  too,  when  our  territo- 
rial area  and  population,  and  our  national  wealth  and  resources, 
were  considerably  less  than  one-fifth  of  what  they  are  to-day. 
And  yet  that  act  of  intervention  for  the  maintenance  of  a  great 
American  doctrine,  and  for  the  preservation  of  the  sovereignty 
and  territorial  integrity  of  our  sister  Republics  of  the  South,  so 
far  from  being  characterized  as  "jingoism,"  has  ever  been  ap- 
plauded as  one  of  the  wisest  and  most  conservative  in  our  national 
history. 

Surely,  the  doctrines  then  officially  proclaimed,  with  the  sub- 
sequent concurrence  and  cordial  support  of  England  herself, 
have  lost  none  of  their  force  and  importance  by  the  lapse 
of  time  ;  and  by  every  consideration  of  reason  and  justice,  both 
governments  ought  to  be  as  much  interested  now  as  ever  in  the 
conservation  of  a  status  the  wisdom  of  which  has  been    demon- 


1Phillimore,  Int.  Law,  vol.  I.,  part  IV.,  chap,  I. 


39 

trated  by  the  experiences  of  three-quarters  of  a  century.  An 
abandonment  of  those  principles  now  by  the  United  States,  or  a 
repudiation  of  that  status  now  by  England,  would  not  only  be 
an  act  of  bad  faith,  dishonorable  to  both,  but  would  involve  in- 
ternational disputes  and  complications  the  end  and  consequences 
of  which  are  beyond  reasonable  conjecture. 

Still,  if  England  should  finally  decide  upon  this  course,  and 
under  the  flimsy  pretext  of  a  boundary  dispute  of  her  own  seek- 
ing, and  which  she  has  hitherto  obstinately  refused  to  adjust 
upon  any  just  and  reasonable  basis,  should  persist  in  her  efforts 
to  extend  her  colonial  system  within  the  territory  and  jurisdic- 
tion of  an  independent  American  Republic,  that  fact  would  be 
but  an  additional  reason,  if  any  were  necessary,  why  the  United 
States  should  reaffirm,  and  maintain  at  all  hazards,  the  principles 
of  the  Declaration  of  1823.  The  only  alternative  would  be  an 
explicit  and  final  abandonment  of  those  principles ;  and  that 
would  involve  a  sacrifice  of  national  honor  and  prestige  such 
as  no  first-class  power  is  likely  ever  to  make,  even  for  the  sake 
of  peace. 


40 


PART  II. 

LORD    SALISBURY'S   MISTAKES. 

In  his  official  note  of  the  26th  of  November,  1895,  intended 
as  a  reply  to  Mr.  Olney's  of  the  20th  of  July,  previous,  Lord 
Salisbury  makes  some  very  surprising  statements  relative  to  the 
boundary  dispute  with  Venezuela,  which,  in  all  probability,  he 
would  not  be  willing  to  repeat  now  ;  but  since  they  remain 
without  material  qualification  or  amendment,  they  seem  to  de- 
mand some  notice. 

He  states,  for  instance,  that  the  boundary  dispute  "  did  not, 
in  fact,  commence  till  after  the  year  1840";  that  "the  title  of 
Great  Britain  to  the  territory  in  question  is  derived,  in  the  first 
place,  from  conquest  and  military  occupation  of  the  Dutch  set- 
tlements in  1796";  and  that  "both  on  this  occasion,  and  at  the 
time  of  a  previous  occupation  of  those  settlements  in  1781,  the 
British  authorities  marked  the  western  boundary  of  their  posses- 
sions as  beginning  some  distance  up  the  Orinoco  beyond  Point 
Barima,  in  accordance  with  the  limits  claimed  and  actually  held 
by  the  Dutch." 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  the 
dispute  began  at  a  much  earlier  date  than  1840.  It  began  as 
early  as  1822,  when  the  Colombian  Confederation,  of  which 
Venezuela  was  then  a  constituent  member,  instructed  its  Minis- 
ter at  London  to  notify  the  British  Government  that  any  English 
settlers  west  of  the  river  Essequibo  would  be  expected  either  to 
retire  or  place  themselves  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Colombian 
authorities.1  Circumstances  soon  arose  which  made  it  impracti- 
cable, for  the  time  being,  to  carry  out  these  instructions,  but 
that  did  not  alter  their  plain  import.  The  manifest  object  was  to 
claim,  as  the  legal  successor  in  title  of  Spain,  all  territory  west  of 


1  See  Official  Hist,  of  the  Discussion,  p.  1. 


41 

the  Essequibo,  which  since  the  treaty  of  1 791 ,  had  been  regarded 
as  the  true  boundary  between  Spanish  and  Dutch  Guayana.  The 
dispute  arose  again  in  1836,  as  appears  from  the  official  note  of 
the  British  Minister  in  Caracas,  dated  May  14th  of  that  year, 
addressed  to  the  Venezuelan  Government.  Moreover,  it  is  very 
well  known  that,  even  as  late  as  1836,  England's  extreme  claim, 
as  the  successor  in  title  of  Holland,  did  not  extend  westward  be- 
yond Cape  Nassau  and  the  Pumaron  River,  nor  southward  on 
the   Cuyuni    above  the  first  falls. 

It  is  true  that  what  was  known  as  Dutch  Guayana  had  been  at 
one  time  the  property  of  the  Crown  of  England,  and  that  the 
English  had  made  some  settlements  on  the  Surinam  River. 
But  in  the  time  of  Charles  II,  these  settlements  were  captured 
and  held  by  the  Dutch  in  retaliation  for  the  British  capture  and 
occupancy  of  the  Dutch  settlements  in  what  is  now  the  State 
of  New  York.  In  February,  1674,  the  Dutch  obtained  a  cession 
of  all  the  British  possessions  in  Guayana  in  exchange  for  those 
of  Holland  in  North  America.  This,  of  course,  left  England 
without  claim  to  any  territory  in  Dutch  Guayana,  which  was 
then  limited  to  the  settlements  or  "establishments"  ceded  to 
Holland  by  Spain  by  the  treaty  of  Munster  in  1648. 

The  subsequent  military  occupations  of  those  settlements  by 
the  British  in  1 781,  in  1796,  and  again  in  1803,  to  which  Lord 
Salisbury  refers,  conveyed  no  permanent  title.  Military  occu- 
pants of  a  country  captured  in  war  may  collect  imports  and 
exercise  local  authority  and  jurisdiction ;  but  they  can  neither 
alter  its  boundaries  nor  perform  other  acts  which  involve  the  right 
of  international  domain.  They  cannot  sell  any  portion  of  the 
territory  so  held,  nor  hypothecate  it,  nor  dispose  of  it  in  any 
manner.  Their  power  is  transitory  merely,  dependent  upon  the 
fortunes  of  war,  and  "  expires  upon  the  termination  of  the  occu- 
pancy, which  leaves  no  trace  of  title  behind  it."  In  the 
present  case,  all  the  territory  so  held  by  Great  Britain  in  Guayana 
was  restored  to  Holland  by  the  treaty  of  Amiens  in  1802,  and 
subsequently  by  the  treaty  of  London  in  18 14.  Moreover,  any 
extension,  or  attempted  extension,  of  those  Dutch  settlements 
while  in  the  military  possession  of   Great   Britain,  would  have 


42 

been  in  open  violation  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  of  1 7 1 3  ;  for  in 
that  treaty,  which  was  still  in  force,  England  was  obligated  to 
"  aid  the  Spaniards  to  recover  the  ancient  limits  of  their  domin- 
ions "  in  America  and  the  West  Indies  "  as  they  stood  in  the 
time  of  the  Catholic  King  Charles  II."  ;  that  is  to  say  as  they 
stood  in  the  year  1700,  when  Charles  II.  died. 

That  Dutch  Guayana  was  then  limited  to  the  four  "establish- 
ments "  or  settlements  of  Surinam,  Demerara,  Berbice,  and  Esse- 
quibo,  scarcely  needs  to  be  pointed  out;  and  all  standard  geog- 
raphers agree  that  the  province  of  Berbice  extended  from  the 
Surinam  to  the  Berbice  River,  that  of  Demerara  from  the  Berbice 
to  the  Demerara  River,  and  that  of  Essequibo  from  the  Demerara 
to  the  Essequibo  River. 

That  previous  to  the  treaty  of  Aranjuez  of  1 791 ,  the  Dutch 
did  make,  in  violation  of  the  treaty  of  1648,  spasmodic  efforts  to 
extend  their  settlements  beyond  the  Essequibo,  is  not  denied. 
They  had  two  temporary  outposts  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Pumaron, 
near  its  mouth,  and  attempted  to  found  settlements  near  Cape 
Nassau.  But  these  aggressions  were  always  repelled  by  the  Span- 
iards ;  and  in  point  of  fact,  those  settlements,  and  also  the  frontier 
posts  on  the  Pumaron,  had  been  abandoned  by  the  Dutch  in  1783, 
as  appears  from  the  official  report  of  Don  Jose  Felipe  de  Inciarte 
of  December  of  that  year.1  And  this  is  confirmed  by  Dutch  tes- 
timony of  the  most  unimpeachable  character,  as  may  be  seen  by 
reference  to  the  note  of  a  Dutch  official  (Mr.  Six),  of  1794,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Spanish  Minister  in  Holland. 

In  1803  the  three  settlements  or  colonies  of  Essequibo,  Ber- 
bice, and  Demerara  capitulated  successively  to  the  English,  who, 
later  on,  held  military  possession  of  the  whole  of  Dutch  Guayana. 
But  by  the  final  treaty  of  peace,  of  August,  18 14,  England 
agreed  to  restore  to  Holland,  within  the  period  of  three  months, 
all  "the  colonies,  factories  and  establishments"  therein,  except 
only  the  three  "settlements  of  Demerara,  Essequibo,  and  Ber- 
bice." These  were  to  be  disposed  of  by  a  "  Supplementary 
Convention,"  to  be  negotiated  "especially  with  reference  to  the 
provisions  contained  in  the  Vlth   and  IXth  articles   of  the  treaty 

1  Archivo  de  las  Indias  (Seville). 


43 

of  peace"  of  May,  1814.  By  that  Supplementary  Convention 
(August  13,  1814),  Holland,  in  consideration  of  certain  sums  of 
money,  to  be  advanced  by  England  under  the  conditions  therein 
specified,  ceded  to  England  "  in  full  sovereignty  "  the  three  "set- 
tlements "  named,  but  no  more. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  source,  and  the  only  legitimate  source, 
of  England's  present  claim  to  territory  in  Guayana.  That  it  is 
limited  to  the  three  "settlements"  named,  as  they  stood  from 
1 79 1  to  1814,  is  manifest.  England  is  therefore  justly  entitled, 
as  the  legal  successor  of  Holland,  to  all  the  territory  within  the 
then  recognized  limits  of  those  three  settlements,  but  not  to 
one  foot  of  ground  beyond.  Holland  never  had  a  fifth  "  settle- 
ment"  or  colony  between  the  Essequibo  and  the  Orinoco;  but 
even  if  she  had,  certainly  no  part  of  it  was  ceded  to  England  by 
the  Supplementary  Convention  of  August  13,  18 14.  Nor  has 
there  ever  been  any  such  concession  since,  either  by  Holland, 
Spain,  Colombia,  or  Venezuela.  Nor  could  there  have  been  any 
such  cession  by  the  native  Indian  occupants,  for  the  ultimate  do- 
minion of  the  soil  could  not  have  been  conveyed  by  them,  even 
had  they  attempted  it,  which  nowhere  appears. l 

In  view  of  these  facts,  so  easy  of  verification,  it  seems  almost 
incredible  that  Lord  Salisbury  should  maintain  that  Mr.  (after- 
wards Sir)  Robert  Schomburgk  "did  not  discover  or  invent  any 
new  boundaries"  in  making  out  his  tentative  divisional  line 
of  1840.  Even  Schomburgk  himself  did  not  take  this  view 
of  the  case,  as  appears  from  his  book  published  in  London  in 
that  year.  For  he  therein  says  he  followed,  not  the  historic  limits, 
but  those  "which  nature  prescribed  by  its  rivers  and  mountains." 
He  had  been  told  by  an  old  Indian,  whose  grandfather  had  told 
him,  that  once  upon  a  time,  according  to  tradition,  some  Dutch- 
men had  a  trading  "post,"  or  something  of  that  sort,  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Amacuro  river.  Without  further  inquiry,  he  se- 
lected this  as  a  starting  point  and  run  a  zigzag  line  thence  to 
the  site  of  another  reputed  ancient  Dutch  "post"  on  the  lower 
Cuyuni,  following  those  limits  "  which  nature  prescribed  by  its 
rivers  and  mountains."      He  seems  to  have   been  in   total    igno- 

1  Supra,  III,  p.  16-17. 


44 

ranee  of  the  fact,  now  so  clearly  disclosed  by  the  resurrection  of 
the  old  Spanish  archives,  that  one  of  these  traditional  Dutch 
"posts"  was  nothing  more  than  a  smuggling  station,  and  the 
other  a  place  for  kidnapping  Indians  from  the  Spanish  missions; 
that  both  were  broken  up  and  destroyed  as  soon  as  their  exist- 
ence became  known  to  the  Spanish  authorities;  and  that  neither 
of  them  was  ever  afterwards  re-established.  Such  was  the  origin 
of  the  "  Schomburgk  line"!  Not  much  wonder  that  it  should 
have  been  so  promptly  disclaimed  by  the  British  Cabinet,  which 
ordered  its  complete  and  final  obliteration,  and  then  proposed  a 
new  line  beginning  at  the  mouth  of  the  Moroco,  more  than  a 
hundred  miles  distant.1 

And  yet  Lord  Salisbury  makes  the  surprising  statement  that 
"while  Mr.  Schomburgk  was  engaged  in  this  survey,  the  Vene- 
zuelan Minister  at  London  had  urged  her  Majesty's  Government 
to  enter  into  a  Treaty  of  Limits";  and  that  "as  soon  as  Her 
Majesty's  Government  were  in  possession  of  Mr.  Schomburgk's 
reports,  the  Venezuelan  Minister  was  informed  that  they  were  in 
a  position  to  commence  negotiations!" 

The  truth  is,  Dr.  Fortique,  the  Venezuelan  Minister  at  London, 
acting  under  written  instructions  from  his  Government,  made  it 
a  condition  precedent  to  any  negotiation  of  boundary  that  the 
so-called  "Schomburgk  line"  be  not  only  disclaimed  but  com- 
pletely obliterated,  although  it  was  then  claimed  by  Lord  Aber- 
deen to  represent  nothing  more  than  the  extreme  limit  of  Eng- 
land's possible  claim,  and  not,  as  now,  an  absolute  boundary. 2 
It  was  not  till  after  Lord  Aberdeen  had  disclaimed  the  line,  and  had 
given  assurances  that  it  would  be  promptly  obliterated,  that  ne- 
gotiations were  commenced.  Then  it  was,  but  not  before,  that 
the  Venezuelan  Minister  proposed  to  open  negotiations  for  a 
boundary  treaty;  then  it  was  that  he  reasserted  the  Essequibo 
river  as  the  rightful  boundary  ;  and  then  it  was  that  Lord  Aberdeen 
proposed  the  divisional  line  beginning  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Moroco  and  extending  southward,  crossing  the  Cuyuni  below 
the  mouth  of  the  Acarabisi. 


L  See  correspondence  in  "  Official  Hist,  of  the  Discussion,"  &c 
2  lb.  Id. 


45 

It  is  true,  as  Lord  Salisbury  says,  that  in  making  this  proposi- 
tion Lord  Aberdeen  imposed  two  conditions,  namely,  that  Vene- 
zuela would  agree  not  to  alienate  any  portion  of  the  remaining 
territory  to  a  third  power,  and  not  to  maltreat  the  Indian  occu- 
pants. But  he  omits  to  state  that  Lord  Aberdeen  refused  to 
make  these  conditions  mutual;  and  that,  pending  these  negotia- 
tions, he  orally  proposed  arbitration,  to  which  "  no  immediate 
answer"  appears  to  have  been  given  by  Venezuela. 

The  agreement  of  1850,  to  which  Lord  Salisbury  refers,  fol- 
lowed in  due  course,  whereby  both  parties  were  obligated  not  to 
occupy  or  attempt  to  occupy  any  portion  of  the  then  unoccupied 
territory  in  dispute  till  after  the  question  of  boundary  should  be 
finally  settled.  That  the  territory  then  in  dispute  did  not  extend 
to  the  Orinoco,  or  to  anywhere  near  it,  is  manifest  from  the  fact 
that  the  British  Government  had  more  than  once,  and  in  more 
forms  than  one,  distinctly  recognized  Venezuela's  right  of  do- 
main and  jurisdiction,  not  only  at  the  Orinoco  delta,  at  Point 
Barima,  and  at  the  mouth  of  the  Amacuro,  but  even  as  far  east- 
ward as  the  Moroco  River. l  Indeed,  in  January,  1867,  and  again 
in  June,  1887,  twenty-one  years  before,  and  again  more  than  a 
whole  year  after  England  had  taken  forcible  possession  of  Point 
Barima  and  fortified  the  mouth  of  the  Amacuro,  the  Governor  of 
Demerara,  acting  under  instructions  from  London,  declared  offi- 
cially that  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  not  guarantee  any 
protection  or  compensation  to  British  miners  or  settlers  in  that 
vicinity  in  case  the  boundary  question  should  be  decided  in  favor 
of  Venezuela. 2 

Each  party  now  accuses  the  other  of  having  violated  the  Agree- 
ment of  1850.  But  even  if  both  accusations  were  true,  it  would 
not  be  material  to  the  real  issue  involved  in  the  boundary  dis- 
pute; for  it  will  hardly  be  seriously  contended  by  either  party 
that  mere  de  facto  occupancy  of  a  disputed  district,  after  the 
dispute  had  arisen,  conveys  legal  title. 

But  that  England  did  violate  the  Agreement  is  conclusively 
shown  by  Lord  Salisbury's  own  statements.      He  admits,  for  in- 

1  Off.  Hist.  Dis.  Boundary  Question. 

2  Certified  copies  of  these  papers  are  now  before  the  Boundary  Commission. 


46 

stance,  that  his  Government  re-established  the  discarded  Schom- 
burgk  line,  and  took  forcible  possession  of  all  the  territory  within 
it.  That  was  clearly  a  violation  of  the  Agreement  of  1850.  He 
attempts  to  justify  it  by  alleging,  first,  that  the  disavowal  and 
obliteration  of  the  Schomburgk  line  by  Lord  Aberdeen,  in  1842, 
was  a  concession  "made  on  the  distinct  understanding  that  Great 
Britain  did  not  thereby  in  any  way  abandon  her  claim  to  that 
position";  and,  second,  that  Venezuela  had  previously  violated 
the  Agreement  by  establishing  new  settlements,  and  by  granting 
mining  concessions  within  the  disputed  territory. 

Both  these  statements  are  inaccurate.  As  to  the  first,  Lord 
Aberdeen's  note  of  January  31,  1842,  will  not  bear  the  con- 
struction here  placed  upon  it.  His  exact  words  were  these: 
"  Her  Majesty's  government  must  not  be  understood  to  abandon 
any  portion  of  the  rights  of  Great  Britain  over  the  territory  which 
was  formerly  held  by  the  Dutch  in  Guiana."  Here  we  have  a 
wide  distinction  between  the  reservation  of  a  capricious  frontier 
line  which  had  just  been  specifically  and  unconditionally  aban- 
doned, and  a  general  reservation  of  rights  to  territory,  be  it  much 
or  little,  that  "was  formerly  held  by  the  Dutch  in  Guiana." 

As  to  the  second,  Venezuela  believed,  on  just  grounds,  that 
the  disputed  territory  contemplated  by  the  Agreement  of  1850 
was,  at  the  utmost,  that  comprised  between  the  Moroco  and  the 
Essequibo  rivers;  and  it  is  in  evidence  also  that  the  British 
Government  understood  the  Agreemenl  in  a  like  sense.  l  Con- 
sequently Venzeuela  has  uniformly  insisted,  as  she  still  insists, 
that  the  mining  concessions  of  which  Lord  Salisbury  com- 
plains were  never  intended  to  include,  and  did  not  in  fact  in- 
clude, any  portion  of  the  territory  then  in  dispute;  while  a 
glance  at  any  good  map  of  the  country  will  show  that  the  new 
settlement  or  township  of  Nueva  Providencia,  of  which  Lord 
Salisbury  complains,  is  wholly  beyond  even  the  repudiated 
Schomburgk  line.  Furthermore,  it  is  very  generally  understood 
that  not  one  of  the  concessions  referred  to  ever  amounted  to  any- 
thing. They  all  lapsed  by  limitation  before  the  conditions  were 
complied  with. 

1  Certified  copies  of  papers  filed  with  the  Boundary  Commission. 


47 

Again,  Lord  Salisbury  says:  "The  claim  put  forth  by  Vene- 
zuela," to  all  the  territory  west  of  the  Essequibo,  "would  involve 
the  surrender  of  a  province  now  inhabited  by  40,000  British  sub- 
jects," and  which  "has  been  in  the  uninterrupted  possession 
of  Holland  and  Great  Britain  successively  for  two  centuries." 
He  makes  this  statement  in  the  very  face  of  the  generally  accepted 
historical  fact  that  Holland  never,  at  any  time,  had  "uninter- 
rupted possession"  of  a  single  foot  of  ground  west  of  the  Esse- 
quibo, certainly  of  none  west  of  the  Pumaron ;  that  there 
were  never  any  but  temporary  Dutch  establishments  west  of  the 
Moroco  River  ;  and  that  there  was  never  even  a  pretense  of  any 
Dutch  settlements  in  the  Cuyuni  basin  above  the  first  falls. 
Moreover,  the  public  treaties,  already  referred  to,  distinctly 
limit  England's  claim  to  the  three  Dutch  "settlements"  of 
Demerara,  Berbice,  and  Essequibo,  as  those  settlements  stood 
in  1 8 1 4.  Surely  his  Lordship  would  not  be  understood  as  con- 
tending that  mere  occupancy,  in  time  of  peace,  of  disputed 
territory  after  the  dispute  had  arisen,  can  invest  title  by  prescrip- 
tion; or  that  because  there  may  be  "  40,000  "  or  any  other  number  of 
"British  subjects"  west  of  the  Essequibo,  the  country  they  inhabit 
is  ipso  facto  British  territory. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  it  is  notorious  that  there  are  no 
"40,000  British  subjects"  settled  west  of  the  Essequibo  River. 
There  are  not  the  half  of  that  number.  It  is  extremely  doubtful 
whether  there  are  as  many  as  10,000.  In  1843,  the  total  popu- 
lation of  the  whole  of  the  three  colonies  of  British  Guiana  was 
only  98,145,  including  coolies,  squatters,  aliens,  negroes,  and  all 
others.  Of  this  number,  the  entire  Essequibo  settlement  or  col- 
ony had  but  21,509.  According  to  the  latest  and  most  reliable 
census  reports,  the  present  population  of  the  whole  of  British 
Guiana  hardly  amounts  to  300,000.  Of  these  over  100,000  are 
negroes,  most  of  whom  are  aliens  from  the  West  India  islands, 
and  comparatively  few  of  them  can  be  said  to  have  any  settled 
habitation.  Fully  150,000  more  are  East  Indian  and  Chinese 
coolies,  brought  out  from  Calcutta  and  Canton  and  elsewhere  in 
India  and  China  under  five  years  indenture,  and  are  at  best  little 
more  than  slaves.     The  entire  white  population  of  the  whole  of 

4  V 


48 

British  Guiana  is  probably  less  than  3,000,  and  the  voting  pop- 
ulation less  than  2,400. 

West  of  the  Essequibo  there  is  not  a  single  British  settlement 
that  was  not  made  against  the  remonstrances  and  formal  pro- 
tests of  the  Colombian  and  Venezuelan  authorities  ;  whilst  those 
between  the  Pumaron  and  Moroco  rivers,  as  also  those  in  the 
Cuyuni  basin  are  of  very  recent  origin.  Not  one  of  them  existed 
as  late  as  1850  ;  not  one  of  them  has  ever  had  even  the  passive 
acquiescence  of  the  Venezuelan  Government.  Those  west  of  the 
Moroco,  and  on  the  eastern  watershed  of  the  Orinoco,  are  of  still 
later  origin.  Not  one  of  them  existed  twenty  years  ago  ;  while 
those  at  Barima  Point,  on  the  Brazo  Barima,  on  the  Guaima,  and 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Amacuro  are  less  than  a  dozen  years  old  ; 
and  each  and  all  of  them  were  made  over  the  repeated  protests 
and  remonstrances  of  the  Venezuelan  Government. 2 

Lord  Salisbury's  allusion  to  Venezuela  as  "the  self-constituted 
inheritor  of  Spain,"  is,  to  say  the  least,  very  unfortunate  ;  for 
surely,  at  this  late  day,  he  would  not  be  understood  as  contesting 
the  long-established  rule — repeatedly  applied  by  the  United 
States,  and  as  repeatedly  recognized  by  Great  Britain — that  "when 
a  European  colony  or  dependency  in  America  becomes  in- 
dependent, it  succeeds,  ipso  facto,  to  the  territorial  limits  of 
the  colony  or  dependency  as  they  stood  in  the  hands  of  the  parent 
country."3  And  it  would  be  quite  as  absurd  to  assume  that  his 
Lordship  now  proposes  to  make  Venezuela  the  first  and  only  ex- 
ception to  that  rule,  fully  three  quarters  of  a  century  after  the 
independence  of  the  country  has  been  formally  recognized  by 
all  the  powers  of  the  civilized  world. 

He  clearly  misapprehends  the  meaning  of  the  declaration  in 
the  Venezuelan  Constitution,  and  of  similar  declarations  in  the 
fundamental  laws  of  the  old  Colombian  Union,  namely,  that  "  the 
territory  of  the  Republic  comprises  all  that  which,  previously  to 
the  political  changes  of  18 10,  was  denominated  the  Captaincy 
General  of  Venezuela."     Such  declarations  by    "  a  newly  consti- 

1  See  certified  copies  of  Census  Reports,  etc..  filed  with  the  Commission. 

2  See  copies  of  these  protests  filed  with  the  Boundary  Commission. 
3 Supra,  II.,  p.  12. 


49 

tuted  state"  he  says,  "can  have  no  valid  force  as  against  inter- 
national arrangements  previously  concluded  by  the  nation  from 
which  it  has  separated  itself."  Assuredly  not.  Nobody  has  ever 
contended  that  it  can.  What  is  contended  for  is,  that  the  limits 
of  the  territory  comprised  in  the  Captaincy-General  of  Venezuela, 
as  they  stood  in  1810,  are  to-day  the  rightful  limits  of  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Republic  as  the  legitimate  inheritor  of  Spain.  In 
other  words,  the  western  frontier  boundary  between  Spanish  and 
Dutch  Guayana  in  1810,  wherever  that  was,  is  unquestionably 
the  present  rightful  frontier  boundary  between  Venezuela  and 
British  Guiana. 

Indeed  we  must  assume  that  Lord  Salisbury  hims"elf  admits 
this.  For,  further  on  in  his  dispatch,  he  says  "the  present  diffi- 
culty would  never  have  arisen  if  the  Government  of  Venezuela 
had  been  content  to  claim  only  those  territories  which  could  be 
proved  or  even  reasonably  asserted  to  have  been  practically  in 
the  possession  and  under  the  effective  jurisdiction  of  the  Cap- 
taincy-General of  Venezuela."  It  is  denied  that  Venezuela  has 
ever  set  up  any  claim  beyond  this.  But  let  us  waive  that  point 
and  proceed  to  narrow  the  issue  down  to  the  single  proposition 
here  intimated.  The  terms  "proved,"  "  reasonably  asserted," 
"practically  in  possession,"  and  "effective  jurisdiction,"  then 
become  pivotal  factors,  and  must  apply  with  equal  force  to  the 
case  of  both  contestants  ;  for  it  is  indeed  a  bad  rule  that  will  not 
work  both  ways.  It  is  therefore  quite  as  incumbent  upon  Great 
Britain  to  prove  "practical  possession,"  or  "effective  jurisdic- 
tion "  on  the  part  of  Holland,  as  it  is  upon  Venezuela  to  prove 
like  conditions  with  respect  to  Spain.  It  is  even  more  so  ;  because 
while  Venezuela  claims  as  inheritor  of  the  original  discoverer 
and  occupant,  England  claims  only  as  inheritor  of  a  second 
comer.  Upon  this  point  it  is  presumed  there  can  be  no  room  for 
disagreement. 

The  whole  question,  then,  as  thus  limited,  turns  exclusively 
upon  simple  and  readily  ascertainable  historical  facts.  But  as  to 
the  verity  of  those  facts,  the  parties  in  interest  have  thus  far 
been  unable  to  agree.  Hence  it  is  a  question  very  properly 
referable  to  a  joint  commission  or  to  outside  friendly  arbitration, 


50 

which  is  all  that  Venezuela  asks  or  has  ever  asked.  Is  Great 
Britain  now  ready,  as  she  was  in  1844,  and  again  in  1885,  to  join 
issue  on  this  single  point?  If  so,  a  settlement  is  already  in 
sight  :   it  only  remains  to  arrange  details. 

True,  Lord  Salisbury  says  the  agreement  of  May,  1885,  to 
which  I  refer,  "had  reference  to  future  disputes  only  "  ;  and  that 
"  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  always  insisted  on  a  separate 
discussion  of  the  frontier  question,  and  have  considered  its  set- 
tlement to  be  a  necessary  preliminary  to  other  arrangements." 
But  this,  aside  from  being  at  variance  with  the  facts,  involves  a 
manifest  contradiction  in  terms.  For  if  "  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment have  'alzvays  considered"  a  settlement  of  the  boundary 
question  "to  be  a  necessary  preliminary  to  other  arrangements," 
how  came  it  about  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  agreed  to  a 
draft  of  treaty  in  advance  of  such  a  preliminary  settlement  ? 

The  fact  is,  however,  that  his  Lordship's  statement  is  wholly  in- 
correct. It  is  supported  neither  by  the  draft  treaty  of  1885,  to 
which  he  refers,  nor  by  the  official  notes  and  protocols  which  pre- 
ceded and  led  up  to  it.  The  agreement  to  arbitrate  contemplated 
not  "  future  disputes  only,"  but  such  as  might  arise  in  the  negotia- 
tions for  the  settlement  of  this  identical  boundary  question. 
Article  XV,  as  finally  agreed  to  by  Earl  Granville,  states,  in  so 
many  words,  that  "  if  there  shall  arise  any  difference  which  can- 
not be  adjusted  by  the  usual  means  of  friendly  negotiation,  the 
two  contracting  parties  agree  to  submit  the  decision  of  all  such 
differences  to  the  arbitration  of  a  third  power,  or  of  the  several 
powers,  in  amity  with  both,  and  that  the  result  of  such  arbitra- 
tion shall  be  binding  upon  both  governments."1 

Surely,  no  construction  is  necessary  to  show  that  the  terms 
"any  differences  "  and  "all  such  differences"  contemplated  any 
and  all  differences  that  might  arise  in  process  of  "friendly  nego- 
tiation" for  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  question.  Indeed  the 
very  differences  and  irritations  growing  out  of  that  long  pending 
negotiation  were  the  prime  occasion,  if  not  the  direct  cause,  of  the 
proposed  treaty  ;  and  it  hardly  needs  to  be  pointed  out  that  "  any 
differences  "  then  thought  of  as  present,  would,  if  continued  unset- 

'See  Official  History  of  the  Discussion,  etc. 


51 

tied,  become  "future"  differences  and  be  properly  described  as 
such.  Moreover  if  there  could  be  any  doubt  on  this  point  it  would 
be  entirely  removed  by  the  notes  and  protocols  of  the  two  pleni- 
potentiaries— General  Guzman  Blanco  and  Earl  Granville — in 
which  it  was  steadily  insisted  on  the  one  hand,  and  finally  con- 
sented to  on  the  other,  that  the  provision  for  general  arbi- 
tration, in  article  XV  of  the  draft  treaty,  should  include  all  differ- 
ences respecting  this  identical  boundary  dispute.  Thus,  in  his 
final  note  of  May  15,  1885,  transmitting  the  revised  draft,  Earl 
Granville  says,  in  so  many  words,  that  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment "  further  agree  that  the  understanding  to  refer  differences 
to  arbitration  shall  include  all  differences  which  may  arise  be- 
tween the  contracting  parties,  and  not  those  only  which  arise  on 
the  interpretation  of  the  treaty,"  as  he  had  previously   insisted.1 

Even  Lord  Salisbury  himself  must  have  understood  the  agree- 
ment in  this  sense  when  he  repudiated  it  just  seventy-two  days 
later;  otherwise  his  note  to  General  Blanco,  dated  July  27,  1885, 
is  meaningless.  In  that  note  he  says  :  "Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment are  unable  to  concur  in  the  assent  given  by  their  predeces- 
sors in  office  to  the  general  arbitration  article  proposed  by  Vene- 
zuela." Why?  "Because,"  to  again  quote  his  exact  words,  "ques- 
tions might  arise,  such  as  those  involving  the  title  of  the  British 
Crown  to  territory  or  other  sovereign  rights  "  which  "  Her  Majesty's 
Government  could  not  pledge  themselves  beforehand  to  refer  to 
arbitration."  2 

This  language,  taken  in  connection  with  the  occasion  which 
called  it  forth,  can  have  but  one  meaning.  Lord  Salisbury  must 
have  understood  that  article  XV  of  the  draft  treaty,  as  it  had  been 
agreed  to  by  his  predecessor,  did  provide,  in  a  most  unmistaka- 
ble manner,  for  the  reference  to  arbitration  of  "  all  differences" 
growing  out  of  the  long  standing  and  still  unsettled  boundary  dis- 
pute ;  and  for  that  reason  he  repudiated  it.  But  for  that  un- 
fortunate (I  might  say  hasty  and  inconsiderate)  act,  the  proba- 
bilities all  are  that  the  boundary  dispute  would  have  been  amica- 
bly and  honorably  settled  long  ago. 

'Off.  Hist.  Discus. 
2  lb.,  Id. 


52 


PART  III. 
FALLACIES  OF  THE  BRITISH  "BLUE  BOOK." 

The  British  Blue  Book  of  March,  1896,  entitled  "Documents 
and  Correspondence  relating  to  the  Question  of  Boundary  between 
British  Guayana  and  Venezuela,"  is  perhaps  as  clever  a  presenta- 
tion of  the  English  contention  as  the  facts  and  circumstances  of 
the  case  would  admit.  True,  it  is  full  of  grave  historical  errors. 
It  abounds  with  unsupported  assumptions.  Its  marginal  notes 
and  citations  of  authorities  are  often  vague,  irrelevant  or  impos- 
sible of  verification.  Some  of  the  extracts  made  from  public 
documents  come  perilously  nigh  being  garbled.  And  it  is  so 
marred  by  the  omission,  or  by  the  partial  presentation,  of  ma- 
terial facts,  as  to  excite  general  distrust.  But,  after  all,  perhaps, 
its  faults  and  failures  are  less  chargeable  to  the  advocate,  than 
to  the  inherent  weakness  of  the  cause  itself. 

In  so  far  as  these  mistakes  were  foreshadowed  in  Lord  Salis- 
bury's note  of  November  last,  and  subsequently  by  a  published 
synopsis  in  the  newspapers,  they  have  received  some  attention 
already,1  and  there  is  no  necessity  for  going  over  that  part  of  the 
ground  again.  There  are,  however,  some  additional  statements 
in  the  Book,  and  in  its  Supplement  of  July,  1896,  which  may  be 
thought  worthy  of  notice.  They  may  be  briefly  summarized  as 
follows  : 

1.  That  "prior  to  1596,  the  Spaniards  had  established 
no  settlements"  in  Guayana;  and,  inferentially,  that  no 
part  of  the  country  was  then  in  their  possession  ; 

2.  That  in  1648,  at  the  time  of  the  treaty  of  Miinster, 
"  the  Dutch  settlements"  extended  westward  to  the  Orinoco 
and  southward  beyond  the  Cuyuni ;  and,  inferentially, 
that  nearly  the  whole  of  Guayana,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  the  Caroni  valley,  was  a  Dutch    possession  ; 

1,1  Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes,"  supra,  pp.  40-51. 


53 

3.  That  up  to  1723  the  Spaniards  had  but  one  settlement 
in  Guayana,  and  that  was  at  Saint  Thome  on  the  Upper 
Orinoco  ;  and,  inferentially,  that  the  navigable  estuaries 
of  that  river,  including  its  immense  delta,  were  under 
Dutch  dominion  ; 

4.  That  up  to  1796  the  Spanish  settlements  were  limited 
to  "a  few  Capuchin  Missions  and  two  villages  above  the 
old  town  of  Saint  Thome;  and,  inferentially,  that  the 
Dutch  held  all  the  balance  of  the  territory  east  and  south 
of  the  Orinoco  ; 

5.  That  this  Dutch  occupancy  (which  is  claimed  to  have 
extended  to  the  Orinoco  delta  and  Point  Barima)  "was 
known  to  the  Spanish  Government,"  which,  however,  in- 
terposed no  objection,  or  at  least  "failed  to  dispossess" 
the  Dutch  ;  and, 

6.  That  "subsequently  to  1796,  Great  Britain  has  con- 
tinuously  remained  in  possession,  and  her  subjects  have  occu- 
pied further  portions  of  the  territory  to  which  the  Dutch 
had  established  their  title.'''' 

While  these  monstrous  assumptions  are  wholly  unsustained, 
even  by  the  very  citations  and  partial  "extracts"  produced  in 
their  support,  they  are,  nevertheless,  made  in  a  grave  State  paper, 
and  shall  be  treated  fairly  and  courteously. 

The  following  propositions  are  nowhere  denied,  even  in 
the  Blue  Book,  viz.: 

1.  That  in  1498,  Columbus,  sailing  under  Spanish  Commission, 
was  the  first  discoverer  of  the  Island  of  Trinidad,  the  Gulf  of  Paria, 
the  Orinoco  delta,  and  of  the  contiguous  coast  of  Guayana ; 

2.  That  in  1499,  Alonzo  de  Ojeda,  a  Spanish  subject  under 
Royal  Commission,  skirted  the  entire  coast  of  Guayana,  from  the 
Orinoco  to  the  Marowine  and  beyond,  landing  at  several  places 
and  taking  formal  possession  in  the  name  of  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment ; 


54 

3.  That  in  1500,  Vicente  Yafiez  Pinzon,  another  Spanish  sub- 
ject, likewise  sailing  under  Royal  Commission,  was  the  first  to 
explore  the  Orinoco  delta,  of  which  he  took  formal  possession  in 
the  name  of  his  sovereign  ; 

4.  That  in  1 5 3 1 ,  Diego  de  Ordaz,  another  Spanish  subject,  was 
the  first  to  explore  the  Orinoco  river,  which  he  ascended  as  far  as 
the  mouth  of  the  Meta,  taking  formal  possession  of  both  banks 
and  of  its  numerous  affluents  in  the  name  of  his  sovereign  ; 

5.  That  it  was  this  same  Ordaz  who  received  from  the  Spanish 
crown  the  first  European  charter  of  lands  and  government  in 
the  territories  thus  discovered  and  explored  ;  and, 

6.  That  these  first  discoverers,  explorers,  and  grantees  com- 
plied with  all  the  requisite  formalities  of  international  law,  as  that 
law  was  then  recognized  and  understood,  necessary  to  invest  title 
in  the  King  of  Spain.1 

Before  proceeding  to  enquire  when  and  under  what  circum- 
stances Spain  relinquished  any  of  her  possessions  in  Guavana, 
perhaps  it  may  be  as  well  to  note  in  passing  (especially  since  the 
fact  is  omitted  in  the  Blue  Book),  that  as  early  as  1528,  in  order 
to  follow  up  Ojeda's  explorations,  the  Spanish  King  agreed 
with  a  Dutch  mercantile  house  "to  protect  a  colony  to  be  sent 
out  by  them"  to  the  northeastern  coast  of  Guayana ;  and  that 
this  was  the  origin  of  the  Alfinger  expedition  of  1530,  which, 
however,  came  to  naught. 2 

The  next  year,  1 5 3 1 ,  an  expedition  inland,  by  way  of  the 
Orinoco,  was  fitted  out  from  Spain  under  Ordaz,  who  penetrated 
to  the  valleys  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Yuruary.  This  became  the 
only  foundation  for  the  pretended   discovery   of  the    fabled   El 

1  Justin  Winsor,  Nar.  &  Crit.  Hist.  America:  Span.  Explorations  &  Settlements  in 
America  from  the  15th  to  the  17th  Centuries,  Vol.  II.,  p.  133  et  seq.:  Irving,  Life  of 
Columbus,  Book  X.,  C.  II.  &  III.:  Letters  of  Columbus,  Nar.  Colec,  v.  I.:  Hist,  del 
Almirante,  C.  88  :  Peter  Martyr,  I  lib.  VI.:  Las  Casas,  Hist.  Ind.,  lib.  I.,  C,  13S  : 
Herrera,  lib.  III.,  C.  10  :  Hackluyt  So.  Pnblications:  also  Bancroft,  Caulin,  etc. 

2  Karl  Kriipfel,  Bib.  des  Literarischen  Verens;  Stutgart,  No.  XLVII. :  Kliinzneor, 
Arith.  der  Deutschen  an  der  Entelckung  :  Von  Kloo's  Die  Wesler,  Augsburg. 


55 

Dorado,  sixty  years  afterward,  of  which  Sir  Walter  Raleigh 
speaks.  1 

In  1534  the  Dutch  made  an  attempt  to  penetrate  the  interior 
of  what  is  now  western  Venezuela  and  eastern  Colombia.  The 
expedition  was  headed  by  George  of  Spires,  but  was  under  the 
immediate  sanction  and  patronage  of  the  King  of  Spain,  who 
was  then  also  titular  Emperor  of  Holland.  2  Spires  started  not 
from  Holland,  but  from  Spain  with  400  men,  landed  near  where 
the  present  city  of  Coro  stands,  in  western  Venezuela,  penetrated 
some  1,500  miles  into  the  interior  of  what  is  now  the  Republic 
of  Colombia,  and  returned  with  the  few  survivors  in  1538.3 

In  1549  Ursua,  a  Spanish  subject,  who  had  superseded  Armen- 
dariz,  another  Spanish  subject,  obtained  command  of  an  expedi- 
tion and  founded  a  town  in  the  interior  of  Guayana,  which,  how- 
ever, had  to  be  abandoned  in  1552,  owing  to  the  hostility 
of  the  native  Indians.  According  to  the  most  reliable  chroniclers 
of  the  time,  Ursua  ascended  the  Rio  Negro,  passed  through  the 
Casiquiare  channel  to  the  Orinoco,  and  thence  down  the  Orinoco 
to  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 4 

Thus,  as  early  as  1549  the  Spaniards  had  not  only  completely 
circumnavigated,  and  taken  formal  possession  of,  the  whole  of 
Guayana,  but  had  penetrated  the  interior  and  established  at  least 
one  settlement  there. 

In  1568  the  Spanish  Government  mapped  out  the  country,  and 
appointed  Pedro  Malaver  de  Silva  and  Diego  Fernandez  de  Serpa 
as  Governors  ;  the  first  over  the  part  west  of  the  Orinoco,  the 
second  over  the  eastern  section  from  the  Delta.  °  Up  to  this 
time,  none  but  Spaniards  had  fitted  out  expeditions  to  Guayana  ; 
none  but  Spaniards  had  penetrated  the  interior ;  none  but  Span- 


1  Works,  Hackluyt  Society:  Justin  Winsor,    "  Spanish  Explorations,"  &c,  vol.  II.. 
P-  579- 

2 Infra,  p.  61,  Note. 

3  Winsor,  vol.  II.     See,  also,   standard  histories  and  geographies  of  Colombia  and 
Venezuela,  by  Restrepo,  Caulin,  and  others. 

4  Winsor,  vol.  II.,  and  authorities  there  cited;  Bancroft,  Cent.  America,  II.,  61  ;  also- 
the  Spanish  colonial  historians. 

3  Winsor,  II,  pp.  585-6  ;  Archivo  de  las  Indias  (Seville). 


56 

iards  had  attempted  to  plant  colonies  there;  none  but  Spaniards 
claimed  territorial  dominion  there. 

The  compilers  of  the  Blue  Book  cite  Purchas'  Pilgrims  to 
prove  that  "in  1595  the  English  explorer,  Captain  Charles  Leigh, 
found  the  Dutch  established  near  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco."1 
Turning,  however,  to  the  volume  and  pages  cited,  we  find  nothing 
about  either  the  Orinoco  or  Dutch  establishments  !  We  find 
only  a  statement  by  Captain  Leigh  (in  a  letter  to  his  brother 
Sir  Orlando),  that  he  got  his  "first  sight"  of  the  country  "in  the 
Amazon  river  on  the  14th  of  May,  1602";  that  he  there  found) 
not  a  Dutch  establishment,  but  only  "a  Dutch  shippe";  that 
"sithence  here  hath  arrived  another";  that  these  "shippes  buye 
up  all  the  flaxe  they  can  get,  and  pay  so  deere  that"  he  could 
get  none ;  nevertheless,  he  says  they  had  "not  gotten  so  little  as 
ten  tunnes  within  these  two  months."  Not  one  word  about 
Dutch  settlements  or  establishments  anywhere  in  Guayana,  and 
not  a  word  about  the  Orinoco  river  ! 

Again,  we  have  the  assertion,  on  page  4  of  the  Blue  Book, 
that  "the  first  settlement  made  by  Spain  in  Guayana  was  in  1  596, 
when  Antonio  de  la  Hoz  Berrio  founded  San  Thome  de  Guayana 
on  the  south  bank  of  the  Orinoco  at  the  site  marked  upon  the 
sketch  map  A" — the  site  here  indicated  being  that  of  "Old 
Guayana"  {Guayana  viejd)  just  above  the  Delta.  Further  on  (p. 
20)  is  the  assertion  that  "prior  to  1723,  there  was  not  a  settle- 
ment by  the  Spaniards  in  the  territory  in  question  except  San 
Thome  de  la  Guayana,  originally  situated  about  the  spot  indi- 
cated on  sketch  map  A,  and  twice  subsequently  removed  further 
up  the  river  to  the  points  indicated  upon  the  same  map  " — the 
second  and  third  sites  here  indicated  being  those  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Caroni  and  at  Angostura  (now  Ciudad  Bolivar)  respec- 
tively. 

The  fallacies  of  these  statements  are  so  apparent  that  they 
scarcely  need  to  be  pointed  out.  It  was  in  1531,  sixty-five  years 
prior  to  the  date  here  given,  that  Ordaz  found  an  Indian  village 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Caroni.  This  became  the  site  of  the  first 
San  Thome'  de  la  Guayana,  which,  after  having  been  a  Spanish 

1  Blue  Book,  p.  4. 


57 

settlement  and  fortification  for  about  48  years,  was  sacked  and 
burned  by  the  freebooter  Jansen  in  1579.1  Of  course  Jansen 
could  not  have  sacked  and  burned  San  Thome  de  la  Guayana 
seventeen  years  before  it  had  an  existence  !  In  159 1,  five  years 
prior  to  the  date  here  given,  San  Thome  de  la  Guayana  was 
moved  down  the  river  to  the  site  of  the  present  Guayana  vieja* 
where  it  was  rebuilt  by  Antonio  de  la  Hoz  Berrio,  and  where  it 
was  attacked  by  the  Raleigh-Keymis  expedition,  161 7. 2  In 
1764  it  was  removed  for  the  third  time  and  located  at  the 
Narrows  (Angostura),  the  site  of  the  present  city  of  Bolivar.3 

As  early  as  1664,  fifty-nine  years  prior  to  the  date  here  given, 
Spanish  mission  settlements  had  been  established  in  Guayana  by 
the  Dominican  and  San  Augustin  orders,  as  also  by  Don  Fran- 
cisco de  Rojas,  Don  Miguel  de  Angelo,  Don  Joseph  de  Figueroa. 
Don  Andes  Fernandez,  and  the  Father  Jesuits.  In  1681,  forty- 
two  vears  prior  to  the  date  here  given,  these  missions  were 
assigned  to  the  Catalan  Capuchin  Fathers,  and  the  assignment 
was  approved,  April  1687,   by  Royal  Cedule.4 

Moreover,  it  was  precisely  in  1595,  one  year  before  the  date 
here  given,  that  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  made  his  first  voyage  to  the 
island  of  Trinidad,  and  thence  through  Boco  de  Navios  up  the 
Orinoco  to  the  mouth  of  the  Caroni.  He  reported  that,  after 
first  overcoming  the  Spanish  force  at  Trinidad,  he  ascended  the 
Orinoco,  where  he  found  "the  Spaniards  had  previously  traversed 
the  whole  country";  that  they  had  been  "cruel  to  the  Indians"; 
that  he  "made  friends  of  the  Indians,"  and  told  them  he  had  come 
to  deliver  them  from  their  Spanish  conquerors  and  oppressors. :> 

In  the  year  following  (1596)  Raleigh  sent  Captain  Keymis,  a 
companion  of  his  first  voyage,  to  renew  the  search  for  the  fabled 
El  Dorado,  "with  a  view  of  planting  a  colony."  Keymis  re- 
turned to  England  in  June  of  the  same  year  and  reported  that 
"the  Spaniards  already  occupied  the  country ";  that  they  were 
in  the   Essequibo   River;  and  that  they  had  established  "settle- 

1  Supra,  p.  54,  loc.  cit. 

-  Infra,  p.  58. 

:1  Archivo  de  las  Indias  (Seville),  vol.  I. 

4  /.''..  Id.     vol.  I.,  p.  221. 

3  Winsor,  v.  II.  and  III. 


58 

ments  at  the  mouth  of  the  Caroni"  and  at  "other  places  with 
men  sent  out  from  Spain."1 

In  June,  1617,  Raleigh  fitted  out  another  expedition  of  11 
vessels  and  431  men,  his  son,  Walter,  and  Captain  Keymis  being 
of  the  number.  The  expedition  was  resisted  by  the  Spaniards  at 
St.  Thome,  in  which  engagement  young  Walter  was  killed. 
Keymis  continued  the  search  for  the  fabled  El  Dorado,  but  was 
met  and  defeated  by  the  Spaniards  when  he  had  proceeded  but  a 
few  miles  into  the  interior,  beyond  the  reach  of  his  ship's  guns. 
He  returned  to  St.  Thome  for  reinforcements,  but  became  despond- 
ent and  committed  suicide.  The  next  year  (1618)  Raleigh  was 
beheaded  at  the  instance  of  the  Spanish  King,  who  had  been 
offended  at  these  meddlesome  incursions.2 

And  yet,  in  order  to  support  the  astonishing  assertion  that 
in  1596  "the  Spaniards  did  not  then  hold  any  part  of  Guayana," 
a  carefully-selected  "extract"  from  a  letter  of  Don  Roque  de 
Montes,  the  Spanish  Colonial  Treasurer  at  Cumana,  is  produced  in 
evidence.3  But  even  this  adroitly  selected  (I  will  not  sav  garbled) 
"extract  "  proves  just  the  contrary.  The  writer  says  that  he  had 
"instructed  Captain  Felipe  de  Santiago  "of  the  Spanish  service  to 
"ascend  the  River  Orinoco  and  arrest  two  Englishmen  whom 
Raleigh  had  left  there  "  as  spies  and  informers,  and  "  to  warn 
the  Indian  chiefs  not  to  admit  or  receive  any  foreigners  except 
Spaniards";  that  these  instructions  were  faithfully  carried  out; 
that  the  only  surviving  Englishman  had  been  arrested;  and  that 
the  Indians  were  warned  against  the  intrusion  of  "any  more  for- 
eigners." He  closes  by  recommending  better  facilities  for  navi- 
gating the  Orinoco,  since  it  was  the  great  fluviatile  highway  to 
western  and  southern  Guayana  and  the  other  Spanish   provinces. 


1  Raleigh's  Works,  Hackluyt  ed.;  Winsor,  vols.  II.  and  III. 

2  Winsor,  Nar.  and  Crit.  Hist,  etc.,  vols.  II.  and  III.  See  also  Hume's  Hist  Eng, 
For  this  act  of  violence  and  piracy,  Raleigh  might  have  been  tried  and  condemned  by 
the  English  common  law;  or  he  might  have  been  tried  and  condemned  by  martial  law 
for  breach  of  orders.  But  as  he  was  already  under  actual  attaint  for  high  treason,  he 
could  not  be  brought  to  new  trial  for  any  other  crime.  So,  to  satisfy  the  Court  of 
Spain,  King  James  I.  signed  the  warrant  for  Raleigh's  execution  upon  his  former 
sentence. 

3  Blue  Book,  App.  p.  50. 


59 

Manifestly,  the  Spaniards  were  then  in  actual  possession  of  the 
Lower  Orinoco  river,  and  in  fact  of  the  whole  of  western  Guayana; 
for  otherwise  they  could  not  have  arrested  the  only  foreigner 
found  there,  or  warned  the  Indian  tribes  against  similar  spies  and 
informers  in  the  future. 

Furthermore,  in  1619,  Just  twenty-three  years  later,  two  Spanish 
colonial  military  expeditions  were  sent  out  from  St.  Thome 
{Guayana  vieja)  to  the  Essequibo  and  Vervice  (Berbice)  Rivers 
to  punish  the  Araucas.  The  last  of  the  two  was  entrusted  to 
Captain  Geronemo  de  Grados,  and  was  composed  of  but  thirty 
soldiers;  yet  it  marched  right  through  the  whole  region,  from 
the  Orinoco  to  the  banks  of  the  Essequibo  by  way  of  Baruma 
and  returned,  without  once  encountering  any  Dutch  or  other 
foreign  forces,  and  no  mention  is  made  of  any  Dutch  settle- 
ments.1 

It  will  be  remembered  also  that  in  1620,  King  James  of  Eng- 
land, learning  that  the  Spaniards  then  held  actual  possession  of 
the  whole  of  Guayana,  revoked  the  patent  he  had  granted,  in 
161 7,  to  Roger  North  and  others  for  the  establishment  of  a 
trading  company  and  colony  there. 2 

The  British  contention  is  that,  "  early  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury various  Dutch  companies  (afterwards  merged  into  the  great 
West  India  Company)  were  employed  in  colonizing  Guayana, 
and  had  established  several  settlements  there  before  1614."3 

The  first  of  those  "various  Dutch  companies"  was  established 
in  1607,  and  soon  became  bankrupt.  A  similar  fate  overtook  its 
successors.  The  "great  West  India  Company"  was  not  organ- 
ized till  1 62 1,  when  the  English  were  still  attempting  to  reach 
the  Pacific  Ocean  by  sailing  up  the  James  river  in  Virginia,  and 
when  the  Dutch  were  yet  trying  to  reach  China  by  way  of  the  north 
pole.4  "West  India,"  as  then  understood,  and  even  as  described  in 
the  Company's  charter,  "  extended  from  the  French  settlements 

1  "Noticias  Historiales  de  los  Conquestas  de  Tierra  Firma  en  las  Indias  Occaden- 
tales,"  by  Fr.  Pedro  Simon,  etc.,  etc.,  1626;  See  Bogota  ed.  of  1882,  Chap.  XXX.,  p. 
401,  e t  seq. 

-  Annals  of  Guayana,  by  Rodway  and  Watt,  London,  1888  :     Winsor,  v.  II. 

3  Blue  Book,  p.  4. 

4  Hildreth  :  Hist.  U.  S.,  v.  I.,  loc.  cit. 


60 

in  Newfoundland,  along  the  Atlantic  coast  to  the  Magellan 
straits,  and  so  around  to  the  South  Sea,  including  likewise  all 
Africa  between  the  tropics  of  Cancer  and  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope."  Within  these  vague  and  indefinite  limits  the  Company 
was  to  have  a  monopoly  of  trade.1  It  was  an  absurd  attempt  to 
blockade  half  the  globe  with  forty  galleots  at  a  time  when  every 
harbor  and  position  of  advantage  was  commanded  by  the  Span- 
iards, French,  and  English  ;  when  the  whole  of  South  America, 
from  Cape  Horn  to  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  was  already  occu- 
pied and  held  by  the  Spaniards  and  Portuguese  ;  and  when  the 
Dutch  were  scarcely  able  to  defend,  inch  by  inch,  the  meagre 
little  sand  banks  and  marshes  of  the  Fatherland.2  Moreover,  the 
charter  of  the  Company  did  not  purport  to  be  a  grant  of  land. 
Its  declared  object  was  to  "encourage  trade,  navigation,  and  com- 
merce "  with  countries  between  which  and  the  States-General 
treaties  already  existed.3 

It  was  however  an  open  secret  that  the  main  expectation  of  profit 
to  the  Company  was  from  plundering  Spanish  merchant  ships.4  It 
is  a  well  established  historical  fact  that  whilst  one  or  two  Dutch 
ships  had  touched  on  the  coast  of  Guayana  to  trade  with  the 
Indians,  there  was  no  attempt  to  plant  Dutch  settlements  there 
until  more  than  a  century  after  the  Spaniards  held  the  country. 
It  was  Raleigh's  first  voyage,  in  1595,  which  started  the  Dutch, 
as  it  had  been  the  Spanish  discoveries  and  explorations  that 
had  started  Raleigh  ;  and  historians  are  generally  agreed  that  the 
first  attempt  by  the  Dutch  at  colonization  took  place  about  the 
year  1624. 5 

Moreover,  these  "various  Dutch  companies,"  as  also  "the  great 
West  India  Company "  itself,  which  succeed  them,  were  then 
legally  under  Spanish  allegiance,  as  were  the  States-General  them- 


1  Charter  of  June  3,  162 1. 

2  Motley,  Hist.  United  Netherlands,  IV.  pp.  298-388. 

3  See  Preamble  to  Charter  of  June  3,  1621. 

4Bancroft:  Hist.  U.  S.,  v.  II.  p.  41.     The  States-General  were  then  in  the  midst  of 
their  long  war  with  Spain. 

5 1 1  ist.  Brit.  Guayana  by  James  Rodway,  F.  L.  S.  (an  English  authority),  v.  I. 


61 

selves.1  Therefore  any  settlements  they  may  have  established  in 
Guayana  were  under  the  recognized  dominion  and  jurisdiction  of 
Spain. 

By  the  treaty  of  recognition  and  cession  of  1648,  usually  re- 
ferred to  as  the  treaty  of  Miinster,  those  settlements  were  ceded 
by  Spain  to  Holland  ;  but  the  cession  was  expressly  limited  to 
bona  fide  Dutch  settlements  then  in  existence.  It  did  not  em- 
brace any  unoccupied  territory  ;  nor  did  it  include  any  abandoned 
Dutch  settlements  or  establishments.  At  that  time  the  Dutch  had 
but  four  "establishments"  or  "settlements,"  as  they  were  alter- 
nately termed,  in  the  whole  of  Guayana.  These  were  on  the  At- 
lantic coast  between  the  Corentyn  and  Essequibo  rivers.  The 
first,  known  as  "Surinam,"  extended  from  the  Corentyn  to  the 
Surinam  river ;  the  second,  known  as  "  Berbice,"  extended  from 
the  Surinam  to  the  Berbice  river;  the  third,  known  as  "Deme- 
rary,"  extended  from  the  Berbice  to  the  Demerara  river ;  and 
the  fourth,  known  as  "  Essequibo,"  extended,  from  the  Demerara 
to  the  western  estuary  of  the  Essequibo  river.  The  cession  em- 
braced no  others.2  Indeed,  there  were  no  others  in  existence. 
There  had  been  frequent  raids  by  Dutch  and  English  free- 
booters into  the  Orinoco  valley,  as  there  had  been  at  Caracas, 
Puerto  Cabello,  and  in  other  parts  of  what  is  now  the  Republic  of 
Venezuela;  but  there  were  no  permanent  Dutch  "establishments" 
or  "settlements"  west  of  the  Essequibo  river,  or,  at  the  very 
farthest,  west  of  Cape  Nassau  and  the  Pumaron.3 

In  167 1    the   Island  of  Trinidad   and   the  Orinoco  delta  being 


1  Charles  V.  of  Spain,  as  heir  of  the  house  of  Burgundy,  inherited  and  united  the 
Dutch  Provinces  under  his  scepter  early  in  the  sixteenth  century.  His  son,  Philip  II., 
who  succeeded  to  the  throne  in  1555,  by  his  harsh  treatment  of  the  Reformers,  excited 
the  Provinces  to  rebellion.  An  almost  continuous  war  of  nearly  eighty  years  followed, 
terminating  in  the  general  peace  of  Westphalia,  and  the  acknowledgment  by  Spain  of 
the  independence  of  the  Dutch  Provinces,  in  1648.  (Motley,  "Rise  of  the  Dutch 
Republic") 

2Treaty  of  Miinster,  Oct.  24,  1648,  Art.  V. 

3  Reynal,  Hist.  Indias  ;  Dalton,  Hist.  Brit.  Guiana;  Depon's  Voy.,  III.;  Noire, 
Geog.  Works;  Meyer's  Geog.  II.;  Bolingbroke,  Voyages,  &c;  Brett,  Indian  Tribes  of 
Guiana  ;  Caulin.  Hist.  Nueva  Andalucia.  Certified  copies  of  MSS.  Colonial  Archives, 
Seville,  during  16th  and  17th  centuries,  now  before    the  Commission. 


62 

threatened  by  the  Dutch  and  Carib  raiders,  the  Home  Government 
was  urged  to  provide  for  an  inspection  of  the  most  important 
ports,  and  to  fortify  the  island  itself  against  possible  attack.  It  was 
also  recommended  that  an  additional  fort  be  established  at  the 
narrowest  part  of  the  Orinoco,  since  the  Dutch  were  "said  to  be" 
already  "near  the  entrance  of  said  river."  But  why  this  should 
be  gravely  cited1  to  show  that  the  Spaniards  had  already  "aban- 
doned," or  were  about  to  "abandon,"  or  were  even  contem- 
plating the  abandonment  of  the  Orinoco  delta,  it  is  difficult  to 
conjecture. 

The  Carib  Indians  had  been  often  incited  to  insurrection  by 
the  Dutch  and  English  during  the  eighty  years'  war  which  ended 
in  the  general  peace  of  Westphalia.  The  Dutch,  and  afterwards 
the  English,  made  annual  presents  to  these  savage  tribes,  sought 
alliances  with  them  against  Spain,  and  finally  pretended  to  have 
established  some  sort  of  Protectorate  over  them.  But,  in  reality, 
this  so-called  "Protectorate"  never  amounted  to  anything,  as  we 
shall  see  further  on.  It  certainly  conveyed  no  eminent  domain 
and  jurisdiction.     The  Dutch   never  claimed  that  it  did.2 

The  citation  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  of  1713*  was  probably 
an  inadvertence  on  the  part  of  the  compilers  of  the  Blue  Book; 
for  that  treaty,  so  far  from  strengthening  the  English  case,  is 
fatal  to  it.  England  therein  solemnly  obligated  herself  (Article 
VIII.)  to  "  aid  the  Spaniards  to  recover  their  ancient  posses- 
sions," in  Guayana  as  in  other  portions  of  the  West  Indies 
and  the  Americas,  "  as  they  stood  in  the  time  of  Charles  II.," 
that  is,  as  they  stood  from  1661  to  1700;  that  is,  as  they  stood 
only  23  years  before  this  alleged  temporary  "abandonment" 
by  the  Spanish  forces  of  the  coast  between  the  Essequibo  and 
Orinoco. 

The  correspondence  between  the  Governments  of  Spain  and 
Portugal,  of  1753-4,  is  cited  in  support  of  the  English  case. 
The  correspondence,  however,  shows  nothing  beyond  a  desire 
on  the  part  of  Spain  to  arrange  with  Portugal  (who  then  owned 
adjacent  territory)  to  rid  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  Guayanas 

1  In  the  Blue  Book,  pp.  8  and  58. 
2 Supra f  p.  78-9. 


63 

of  Dutch  interference  with  the  native  Indian  tribes,  whom  they 
were  constantly  inciting  to  insurrection.  Spain  had  become  so 
exasperated  at  these  meddlesome  interventions,  and  at  the  fre- 
quent raids  into  her  territory  by  Dutch  adventurers,  slave-catchers, 
kidnappers,  and  smugglers,  that  she  had  well-nigh  resolved  to 
try  to  find  some  means  of  ridding  the  whole  Atlantic  coast  of 
them.1 

In  1755,  the  Dutch  advanced  from  the  Essequibo  river,  a  short 
distance  up  the  Cuyuni,  where  they  attempted  to  establish  an 
outpost.  They  were  driven  back  by  the  Spaniards  who  were 
then  in  possession  of  the  whole  Cuyuni  valley  above  the  first 
falls.  Three  years  later  (in  1758)  the  Spaniards  destroyed  a  hut 
that  some  Dutch  kidnappers  had  erected  on  or  near  the  Island  of 
Caramucuro,  in  the  lower  Cuyuni  river,  a  few  leagues  above  its 
junction  with  the  Essequibo.2 

In  1753,  the  Orinoco  river,  and  thence  up  the  Meta,  was  the 
usual  route  of  travel  between  the  Spanish  settlements  on  the 
coast  and  those  in  the  remote  interior  of  what  is  now  the 
Republic  of  Colombia3;  and  the  same  was  true  ten  years  later 
(December,  1763)  when  the  Governor-General,  Don  Joseph 
Diguja,  made  his  celebrated  Report4  to  the  Home  Government. 
This  could  not  have  been  the  case  unless  the  Spaniards  then  con- 
trolled the  mouths  of  that  great  river 

The  refusal  by  Spain  to  permit  the  Dutch  to  fish  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Orinoco,  in  1758,  has  been  often  cited  in  support  of  the 
Venezuelan  claim,  but  never  before  in  support  of  the  British 
contention.  Why  it  should  have  been  cited  by  the  compilers  of 
the  Blue  Book  to  prove  that  the  Dutch  were  then  in  possession 
of  the  mouth  of  that  river  is  not  quite  clear! 

The  same  is  true  of  the  official  correspondence  between  the 
Dutch  Ambassador  and  the  Spanish  Government  in  1778,  for  it 
certainly  establishes  the  fact  of  Spanish  dominion  on  the  lower 
Orinoco.     The  Dutch  complaint,  in  effect,  was  that  the  Span- 

1  Archivo  General  de  las  Indias.  Seville,  131-2-17,  in  Certified  Copies  before  the 
Commission. 

2  Archivo  de  las  Indias  (Seville)  Vol.  II.,  Cert.  Copies  before  the  Comm. 

3  Archivo  de  las  Indias  (Seville),  Vol.  I. 
*  Vol.  I.,  Chap.  II.,  Arch,  de  las  Indias. 

5  v 


64 

iards  had  broken  up  the  slave  "  post "  in  the  Lower  Cuyuni,  and 
had  captured  and  confiscated  some  Dutch  fishing  crafts  at  Barima.. 
The  Spaniards  justified  these  acts  of  jurisdiction  by  alleging 
ownership  of  the  territory.  The  Dutch  got  no  redress  and 
abandoned  their  claim.  1 

As  late  as  1779,  the  Dutch  settlement  of  Essequibo  and  the 
other  colonies  of  the  States  General  were  confined  to  the  banks 
of  the  rivers  near  the  seacoast.  None  of  them  extended  very 
far  into  the  interior.  Back  of  these  coast  settlements — west  of 
the  Essequibo  and  eastward  and  southward  up  to  the  French  and 
Portuguese  possessions — was  little  more  than  a  wilderness  occu- 
pied by  fugitive  negro  slaves  and  Indian  tribes.  As  this  terri- 
tory had  never  been  alienated  by  Spain,  nor  occupied  by  any 
foreign  power,  she  still  claimed  it  as  part  of  her  domain,  and 
took  measures  for  its  settlement.2 

In  1788  the  confidential  Agent  of  the  Spanish  Government  in 
Guayana  recommended  that  no  more  timber  be  cut  on  the  Lower 
Orinoco;  and,  strangely  enough,  this  fact  is  cited3  to  show  that 
the  Dutch  were  then  "  in  possession "  of  that  region!  It  may 
well  be  asked,  Why  such  a  recommendation  if  the  Spaniards- 
were  not  then  in  actual  possession?  True,  the  recommendation 
was  made  for  prudential  reasons.  The  dense  forests  were 
thought  to  be  a  "  safeguard  and  barrier  against  the  Dutch  and 
their  Carib  allies,"  who,  it  was  suggested,  might  otherwise  "  see 
our  nakedness  and  attack  us."  Apprehending  raids  by  these 
people,  the  Agent  thought  it  prudent  to  leave  the  forests  stand- 
ing. But  there  is  certainly  no  evidence  of  a  purpose  to  "  aban- 
don "  the  lower  Orinoco.  On  the  contrary,  even  the  very 
meagre  and  partial  extract  produced4  shows  that  the  Spaniards 
were  then  actively  preparing  to  defend  the  country  against 
possible  attack;  and  when  the  letter  is  read  as  a  whole,  it 
proves  quite  the  reverse  of  the  British  contention. 5 

1  Archivo  General  de  las  Indias  (Seville). 

2  See  Royal  Rescript,  1768  ;  also  Inst.,  Mar.  9,  1779;  Archiv.  de  las  Indias  (Seville)* 
Certified  Copies  now  before  the  Commission. 

s  Blue  Book,  pp.  17,  18. 

4  lb.,  Id.,  pp.  17,   18s 

5  See  certified  copy  of  Original  MS.,  now  before  the  Commission ;  Arch,  de  las 
Indias. 


65 

So,  too,  of  the  report  of  Antonio  Lopez  de  la  Puente,  in  the 
same  year,  respecting  the  defenses  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Yuruan 
valleys.1  He  recommended  that  the  Caribs  be  prevented  from 
visiting  the  Dutch  settlement  on  the  Essequibo,  lest  they  should 
tell  the  Dutch  of  the  condition  of  the  country,  who  might  attack 
the  Spanish  settlements  and  missions  on  those  rivers.  Here  is 
certainly  no  evidence  of  "  abandonment,"  either  actual  or  con- 
templated. 

When  studied  as  a  whole,  and  in  connection  with  the  contem- 
poraneous documents,  that  report  shows  that  the  Spaniards  then 
controlled,  absolutely,  the  entire  Cuyuni  basin.  The  Dutch 
slave-traders  (or  rather  kidnappers)  had  previously  ascended 
the  lower  rapids  of  the  Cuyuni  in  canoes,  in  order  to  kidnap 
Spanish  Indians  for  the  slave  market  in  the  colony  of  Essequibo. 
"At  the  junction  of  the  Mazaruni  and  Cuyuni  rivers,"  some 
twelve  or  fourteen  miles  from  the  Essequibo,  "  the  Dutch,"  ac- 
cording to  Lopez,  still  maintained  "  a  detachment  at  a  fort  called 
Castillo  Viejo" — a  Spanish  name,  and  in  point  of  fact  the  fort  itself 
was  on  the  site  of  an  old  Spanish  fortification.  From  this  point 
"  the  Dutch  from  the  Essequibo  colony  had  thrown  out  a  guard 
some  twenty  or  twenty-five  leagues  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating 
their  contrabrand  trade  "  ;  that  is  for  kidnapping  Indians  from 
the  Spanish  missions.  It  is  quite  manifest  that  this  advance 
"  guard  "  or  raiding  station  was  none  other  than  the  one  which 
had  been  broken  up  and  destroyed  by  the  Spaniards  in  1758,  as 
soon  as  it  had  been  discovered.2 

Again,  it  is  asserted3  that  "the  entire  absence  of  any  control 
by  the  Spaniards  over  the  territory  in  question  is  further  shown 
by  a  Report  of  Don  Miguel  Marmion,  the  Spanish  Governor  " 
of  Guayana,  in  1788.  But  even  the  seven  lines  "extract"  (in 
bad  translation)  adduced4  fails  utterly  to  support  this  assertion ; 
while  the  certified  copy  and  correct  translation  of  the  original 

1  Cited  in  the  Blue  Book,  p.  18. 

2  See  Archivo  de  las  Indias,  vols.  II.  and  III. 
8  Blue  Book,  p.  17. 

*Ib.,Id. 


66 

Report  as  a  whole,1  dated  August  16,  1788,  tells  quite  a  differ- 
ent story. 

It  is  a  matter  of  familiar  history  that,  for  a  long  series  of  years, 
the  Spanish  mission  settlements,  and  the  more  docile  Indian  tribes 
in  the  Spanish  territory,  suffered  from  the  raids  of  the  warlike 
and  ferocious  Caribs.  These  raids  were  almost  invariably  insti- 
gated by  Dutchmen,  who  bought  the  Indians  captured  by  the 
Caribs.  It  is  even  in  evidence  that  in  some  cases  the  Dutchmen 
were  in  the  habit  of  staining  their  own  bodies  and  of  personally 
attending  their  Carib  allies  in  savage  costume.  Complaints  of 
these  outrages  were  constantly  made  by  the  missionary  Fathers 
to  the  Governor  of  Guayana,  and  by  these  to  the  Government  at 
Madrid.  And  yet  these  raids  constitute  the  only  ground  of  claim 
to  occupancy  by  the  Dutch;  and  upon  that  claim  to  occupancy 
alone,  the  present  claim  of  Great  Britain  rests!  As  well  might 
it  be  alleged  that  the  contemporaneous  Indian  raids  and  massacres 
in  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  and  those  of  a  still  later  date 
in  Vermont,  tend  to  show  abandonment  by  the  English,  and 
occupation  by  the  French,  who  were  the  real  instigators  of  those 
raids. 

Finally,  if  in  1790,  as  intimated  in  the  Blue  Book,  the  Dutch 
and  the  Caribs  were  again  making  raids  upon  the  Spanish  settle- 
ments and  missions  in  the  interior,  it  was  but  natural  that  the 
Colonial  authorities  should  hesitate  to  establish  a  "  new  settle- 
ment" eastward  of  Tumeremo,  unless  the  Home  Government 
would  first  agree  to  establish  and  maintain  an  additional  military 
post  beyond  "  to  prevent  robberies  by  the  Carib  Indians  and  the 
Dutch,"  who  had  been  systematically  raiding  the  missions  and 
settlements  for  Poytos  or  Indian  slaves.2 

In  the  Blue  Book  Supplement,  of  July,  1896,  it  is  stated  that 
"the  presence  of  the  Dutch  on  the  coast  as  far  as  the  mouth  of 
the  Orinoco  in  the  early  part  of  the   17th  century,  and  their  in- 


1  No.  XVIII.,  Archivo  General  de  Indias :  Seville :  C,  131,  S.  2,  B.  17  ;  now  before 
the  Commission. 

2  Archivo  Confidencial,  Caracas,  1790-6  ;  Certified  Copies  now  before  the  Commission. 


67 

tention  of  establishing   further  settlements,  was   well  known  to 
the  Spaniards."1 

There  is  nothing  in  support  of  this  assertion.  Even  the  two 
very  misleading  "  extracts  "  produced  from  the  Spanish  archives- 
fail  to  support  it.  Don  Bernardo  de  Vargas,  Governor  of  the 
island  of  Margarita,  had  reported  the  presence  of  some  English- 
men on  the  coast  of  the  mainland;  and  he  had  asked  for  leave 
of  absence  long  enough  to  head  an  expedition  and  "drive  away 
the  intruders."  Don  Juan  Tostado,  Governor  of  the  Island  of 
Trinidad,  reported  that  he  had  hanged  some  "Flemish  [Dutch] 
pirates "  who  had  been  captured  by  the  Spaniards  near  the 
Orinoco  mouth;  and  that  he  had  "persecuted  and  given  such 
ill-welcome "  to  the  Flemings  and  other  foreigners  who  had 
attempted  to  reconnoitre  that  quarter,  that  "  they  had  never 
returned."  We  read  also  that  complaint  had  been  made  of  "the 
Flemings  and  Caribs  "  who  had  "come  to  steal  [i.  e.,  kidnap] 
friendly  Indians  "  and  carry  them  away  as  slaves  to  the  Dutch 
settlements  "  near  the  Corintine "  [river],  where  there  were 
"more  than  50  married  Dutch  who  commit  insolent  robberies, 
which  must  be  put  a  stop  to,"  etc.  We  read  further  on  how 
Antonio  de  Mujica,  Lieutenant  of  Guayana  [at  St.  Thome  de 
Guayana],  proceeded  to  "the  river  called  Corentine,"  200  leagues 
from  that  city  (St.  Thome),  set  fire  to  the  post,  so  that  "  not  one 
of  the  Flemings  escaped,  but  all  were  burned"  ;  and  how 
he  recommended  that  "it  would  be  well  to  free  our  coasts 
of  them  entirely,"  from  the  river  Maranon  [Amazon]  to  the 
Orinoco,  because  they  were  "  trading  with  the  Indian  tribes^ 
which  is  a  serious  matter,"  etc.  In  short,  we  find  nothing  what- 
ever about  "  Dutch  settlements"  at  or  near  the  Orinoco  delta,  or 
on  the  Brazo  Barima;  only  the  old,  old  story  of  Dutch  raids  into 
Spanish  territory  in  pursuit  of  the  horrid  traffic  in  Spanish-In- 
dian slaves. 

It  is  further  stated3  that  "as  early  as  1683  Barima  was  made 
a  sub-station  under  the  [Dutch]  Postholder  at  Pomaroon,  to> 
whose  jurisdiction  it  appears  to  have  already  belonged." 

1  Blue  Book  Supplement,  p.  4. 

2  lb.,  Id.    App.,  pp.  203-204. 
6  Supp.  Blue  B.,  p.  1 1. 


68 

The  only  authority  produced,  and 'therefore  presumably  the 
only  authority  that  can  be  produced,  in  support  of  this  statement, 
is  an  "extract"  from  a  letter  dated  "Commandeur,  Esequibo, 
December  25th,  16S3,"  addressed  to  the  West  India  Company, 
in  which  the  writer  says  he  had  "  caused  one  of  the  Company's 
servant's  to  reside  at  Barima  "  for  the  "purposes  of  trade";  that 
"  the  place  lies  near  Pomaroon,"  and  has  "  recently  been  navi- 
gated two  or  three  times  by  Gabriel  Bishop,"  who  "had  traded 
there  with  great  success,"  and  "  was  well  treated  "  by  the  na- 
tives and  Spanish  authorities,  "to  the  great  prejudice  of  the 
Honorable  Company."  The  "  place"  appears  to  have  been  on 
the  coast  near  the  entrance  of  Brazo  Barima,  eastward  of  Boco 
de  Navios,  the  principal  estuary  of  the  Orinoco.  The  writer  ex- 
pressed the  "hope"  that  "the  Honorable  Company"  would 
"approve"  his  action  in  the  premises;  but,  although  he  insisted 
that  the  Company  had  "as  good  aright  to  trade  and  traffic  there 
in  an  open  river"  as  had  "private  persons,"  no  such  approval 
appears  of  record.  Nor  is  there  the  slightest  hint  that  the  Span- 
iards were  not  then,  as  they  had  been  for  nearly  two  centuries, 
in  the  undisputed  possession  of  Brazo  Barima,  and,  in  fact,  of 
the  whole  coast  country  between  the  Orinoco  and  the  Pumaron. 
The  claim  of  Dutch  dominion  and  jurisdiction  on  such  slender  evi- 
dence as  this  is  simply  absurd.  As  well  might  it  be  said  that  the 
Dutch  had  territorial  dominion  and  jurisdiction  at  the  Colombian 
ports  of  Rio  Hache,  Santa  Martha,  and  Carthagena,  because  the 
Dutch  West  India  Company  once  had  trading  stations  or  "posts" 
at  those  places. 

This  claim  by  Great  Britain  to  the  Barima  region  involves  the 
control  of  the  Orinoco  river.  It  involves,  besides,  the  large  and 
fertile  area  of  territory  between  the  Atlantic  coast  and  the  Imat- 
aca  mountains,  and  which  stretches  some  forty-five  leagues  from 
the  Orinoco  to  the  Essequibo.  It  is  nowhere  denied  that  this 
region  was  first  discovered,  explored  and  taken  into  formal  pos- 
session by  the  Spaniards.  The  British  contention  is  that  this 
entire  region  having  been  abandoned  by  the  original  discoverers, 
has  been  "successively  and  continuously  occupied  by  the  Dutch 
and  English  for  a  period  of  two  hundred  years";  and  upon  this 


69 

unsupported  assertion,  and  upon  it  alone,  Great  Britain  now 
predicates  her  monstrous  claim  to  that  immense  territory.1 

Now  the  facts  in  the  case,  as  will  be  fully  set  forth  and  proved 
in  a  separate  Brief,2  are  as  follows: 

That  Spain  owned  and  occupied  the  entire  basin  of  the  Orinoco, 
is  not  denied.  The  only  dispute  relates  to  the  mud  islands  of  the 
Delta  and  to  the  region  inhabited  by  savage  Indians.  But  by  a  well 
established  principle  of  public  law,  appealed  to  by  Great  Britain 
herself  on  various  occasions,  these  likewise,  of  necessity,  belong 
to  the  power  owning  and  controlling  the  firm  banks  of  the  river; 
and  that  title  can  be  displaced  only  by  "  actual,  extensive,  public, 
notorious  occupation,  permanent  in  character,  long-continued, 
and  never  given  up.3"  But  Spain's  (now  Venezuela's)  title  to  those 
islands  and  estuaries,  and  to  the  adjacent  region,  was  never  given 
up  or  displaced.  No  part  of  the  Delta  or  of  the  adjacent  region 
was  ever  permanently  occupied  by  either  the  Dutch  or  English. 
Neither  of  them  ever  had  a  permanent  settlement  there  prior  to 
1886,  when  the  British  took  violent  possession  of  Point  Barima 
and  the  Amacuro  mouth.  There  is  not  even  a  pretense  of  any 
such  occupation  or  settlement  by  either  the  Dutch  or  English.4 

It  is  true  that,  about  the  middle  of  the  17th  century,  the  Dutch 
did  make  an  attempt,  in  violation  of  treaty,  to  establish  a  settle- 
ment near  the  mouth  of  the  Pumaron  river,  some  twenty  miles 
west  of  the  Essequibo.  The  attempt,  however,  failed.  The 
•embryo  Dutch  settlement  was  broken  up  and  destroyed  by  the 
Spaniards  eight  years  later.5  Later  on,  the  Dutch  West  India 
Company  made  a  second  attempt  to  establish  a  settlement  there; 
but  this,  too,  was  broken  up  and  destroyed  by  the  Spaniards 
three  years  later,  when  the  Company  ordered  it  to  be  abandoned.6 

About  the  middle  of  the  18th  century  the  most  westeily  Dutch 
"post"   on   the   frontier  was   at  the  mouth  of  the  Moroco  river, 

1  See  Lord  Salisbury's  note  of  November  26,  1895  '>  Off-  Hist.  Discus. 

1  By  Mr.  Storrow,  on  "The  Settled  Districts." 

3  See  authorities  cited  in  the  Brief  referred  to. 

*Ib.,  Id. 

5  lb.,  Id. 

*Ib.,  Id. 


70 

some  forty  leagues  east  of  the  Orinoco  mouth.  It  was  profes- 
sedly established  only  for  the  purpose  of  catching  runaway  slaves  r 
and  as  such  was  "  tolerated  "  by  the  Spaniards  who  still  claimed 
dominion  there.  Then  came  the  extradition  Treaty  of  1791, 
which  rendered  this  outpost  unnecessary,  and  fixed  the  boundary 
at  the  Essequibo.  Moreover,  this  Dutch  "  post"  had  never  been 
occupied  consecutively,  but  only  from  time  to  time  as  exigencies 
demanded.  It  was  finally  abandoned  entirely,  and  there  was 
never  a  Dutch  settlement  beyond  that  point. 

It  is  likewise  true  that  in  1683  the  Director-General  of  the 
West  India  Company  recommended  the  establishment  of  a  trad- 
ing-post on  Brazo  Barima;  and  that,  pending  the  Company's  re- 
ply, he  placed  an  agent  there  to  trade  with  the  Indians.  The 
Company,  however,  refused  to  act  upon  this  recommendation. 
The  temporary  trading-post  was  accordingly  withdrawn;  and 
never  afterwards  did  the  Dutch  have  a  post  or  anything  of  the  kind 
farther  west  than  the  Moroco  river.1  The  Dutch  smuggling  and 
kidnapping  station  near  Brazo  Barima,  attempted  between  the 
the  years  1758  and  1770,  constitutes  no  exception;  because  as 
soon  as  discovered  it  was  broken  up  and  destroyed  by  the  Span- 
ish colonial  authorities.2 

The  Spaniards,  then,  never  relinquished  control  of  this  region. 
They  dominated  it  under  assertion  of  right,  and  exercised  sov- 
ereignty and  jurisdiction  there  up  to  the  time  of  the  revolt  of 
1810,  when  Venezuela  succeeded  to  the  title.  The  Dutch  author- 
ities were  well  aware  of  this;  and  although  the  energetic  and 
aggressive  van's  Gravesand,  Director-General,  repeatedly  urged 
that  it  was  detrimental  to  the  Essequibo  colony,  no  steps  were 
ever  taken  to  prevent  it  other  than  the  vague  and  curious  remon- 
strance of  1769.  That  remonstrance  was  practically  disregarded 
by  the  Spanish  Government,  and  the  complaint  was  abandoned. a 

The  Dutch  traffic  in  Poytos  or  Indian  slaves  began  early  in  the 
1 8th  century.     The  Dutch  bought  these  slaves  from  the  Caribs, 

1  See  authorities  cited  in  Mr.  Storrow's  Brief  on  Settled  Districts.     See  also  Vene- 
zuela's masterly  Reply  to  the  Blue  Book,  now  before  the  Commission. 

2  Span.  Archives  (Seville),  vols.  II.  and  III.,  now  before  the  Commission. 

3  lb.,  Id. 


71 

who  kidnapped  their  victims  from  the  more  docile  tribes  near 
the  Spanish  missions.  As  the  demand  for  slaves  increased  and 
the  traffic  became  more  general  and  active,  a  few  Dutch  slave- 
traders  would  take  up  their  temporary  quarters  at  some  outpost 
among  the  Caribs  in  order  to  direct  the  horrid  traffic  and  receive 
pay  for  the  kidnapped  Indians.  These  slave-trading  posts 
were  invariablv  on  frontier  territory  reckoned  as  Spanish,  remote 
from  the  Dutch  settlements.  It  was  in  no  sense  an  occupation 
or  settlement  of  land  as  a  sovereign.  It  was  not  even  an  act  of 
temporary  dominion. 

Such  was  confessedly  the  origin  of  the  so-called  Dutch  post 
of  Arinda,  on  the  Upper  Essequibo.  "It  was  intended,"  (wrote 
van's  Gravesand,  the  Director-General  in  1763,)  "for  the  trade 
in  red  slaves  and  dyewoods,"  and  to  "prevent  the  slaves  making 
off  in  that  direction."1 

The  same  is  true  of  the  alleged  Dutch  "posts"  in  the  Cuyuni 
basin,  above  the  first  cataracts  near  the  junction  of  the  Mazaruni. 
It  is  admitted  by  the  advocates  of  the  British  claim  that  prior  to 
the  year  1759  tne  Dutch  had  made  no  claim  whatever  to  the 
Cuyuni  above  the  first  falls.  The  claim  was  then  asserted,  for  the 
first  time,  in  the  complaint  made  by  the  Dutch  Director-General 
on  account  of  the  destruction,  by  the  Spaniards,  in  1758*  of  the 
so-called  Dutch  post  near  Caramacura.  The  Spaniards,  as  we 
have  seen,  justified  their  act  by  asserting  jurisdiction  there;  the 
Dutch  got  no  redress,  and  abandoned  their  extravagant  claim.2 

The  Supplemental  Blue  Book  alleges  (p.  18),  that  "it  is  clearly 
shown  by  a  Report  of  the  Director-General  of  the  12th  August, 
1 761,  that  the  right  (?)  bank  of  the  [Brazo]  Barima  had  long 
been  considered  the  territory  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company, 
and  that  there  has  been  at  one  time  a  Dutch  post  in  Barima." 

Turning  to  the  documents  cited  in  support  of  this  assumption 
we  find  only  a  meagre  "extract"  from  one  of  van's  Gravesand's 
letters,  dated  "Rio  Essequibo,  August  12th,  1761,"  in  which  he 

1  Supp.  Blue  B.,  Ap.  126. 

2  See  Certified  copies  of  Span.  Archives,  vol.,  II.,  now  before  the  Commission  in 
the  original  and  also  in  translation.  This  point  will  be  more  fully  established  in  a 
separate  Brief. 


72 

reports  that  "the  sworn  depositions,"  asked  for  by  the  Company, 
" concerning  the  canoes  captured  by  the  Spaniards"  at  Barima 
could  not  be  obtained,  "especially  those  relating  to  the  canoes  which 
were  out  salting,  and  which  were  consequently  seized  "  by  the 
Spaniards.  "On  those  canoes  were  no  whites,"  he  says;  "there 
was  only  one  negro,  and  the  rest  were  free  Indians,"  that  is, 
Caribs;  and  that  "with  regard  to  the  others,  the  whites  that 
were  captured  in  them  are  prisoners  in  Orinoco,  and  are  in 
the  [Spanish]  castle  there."  "One  of  the  canoes,"  he  continues, 
"having  been  captured  this  side  of  Barima,  I  am  of  opinion  that 
it  was  captured  upon  the  Honorable  Company's  territory.  He 
admits  quite  frankly,  that  in  support  of  this  "opinion"  he  could 
produce  no  evidence  whatever  beyond  a  vague  and  shadowy 
"Indian  tradition"  that  the  Company  "once  had  a  post  in 
Barima"!1 

It  appears  then  that,  up  to  1648,  Spain  never  relinquished  her 
title  to  any  portion  of  the  country;  that  neither  before  nor  during 
the  long  war  which  ended  in  the  general  peace  of  Westphalia,  did 
the  Dutch  have  a  single  "  settlement"  or  permanent  "establish- 
ment "  west  of  the  Essequibo,  or  at  the  farthest  west  of  the  Pu- 
maron;2  that  they  had  none  in  the  interior  west  or  south  of  the  up- 
per Essequibo,  or,  at  farthest,  above  the  lower  falls  of  the  Cuyuni 
near  its  junction  with  the  Mazaruni;  that  the  cession  of  1648 
embraced  actual  and  bona  fide  settlements  or  "  establishments  " 
only;  that  there  were  never  any  subsequent  cessions  by  Spain 
to  Holland;  and  that  every  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  to 
extend  their  occupancy  in  violation  of  that  treaty,  was  success- 
fully resisted  by  the  Spaniards. 

II. 

England  acquired  title  to  what  is  now  known  as  British  Gui- 
ana in  1814.  Her  previous  military  occupations  of  the  country 
(in  1781,  1796,  and  again  in  1803)  conveyed  no  title,  as  has 
been  many  times  shown. 3  Whatever  title  she  may  have  claimed 

1  Supp.  Blue  B.,  Ap.  p.  117. 

2  Supra. 

3  Supra. 


73 

•or  acquired  by  those  military  occupations,  was  swept  away  by 
the  treaties  of  peace  which  followed.1  By  the  Supplemental 
treaty  of  1814,2  Holland  ceded  to  England,  "  in  full  Sovereignty" 
and  for  a  monetary  consideration,  the  three  "  Settlements  of  Ber- 
bice,  Demerara,  and  Essequibo,"  as  the  limits  of  those  settlements 
had  been  recognized  by  the  Munster  treaty  of  1648,  as  they  had 
been  interpreted  by  the  treaty  of  Aranjuez  of  1791,3  and  as  they 
stood  at  the  time  of  the  cession  of  1814.4  There  have  been  no 
additional  cessions  to  England  since,  either  by  Holland,  Spain, 
or  Venezuela;  and  it  has  been  many  times  shown  that  the  native 
aboriginal  tribes  had  no  authority  to  make  any  such  cessions.5 

It  follows,  then,  that  the  alleged  "marking  out  of  boundaries" 
by  the  British  military  authorities  in  17966  was  purely  an  ex  'parte 
arrangement,  and  amounted  to  nothing.  Plainly  speaking,  it 
was  an  unjustifiable  aggression  upon  Spanish  territory  by  a 
military  and  naval  power  which  Spain  was  not  then  in  a 
position  to  successfully  resist  by  force.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that,  even  if  cognizant  of  this  aggression,  she  ever  as- 
sented to  it  for  a  moment. 

Nor  does  it  anywhere  appear,  even  from  the  documents  in  the 
Blue  Book  Appendix,  that  the  Dutch  were,  at  any  time  from  1648 
to  1796,  in  the  "uninterrupted  possession"  of  a  foot  of  territory 

1  Treaty  of  Amiens,  Mar.  25,  1802;  Peace  of  May,  1814  ;  Treaty  of  Aug.  13,  1814. 

2  Art.  I. 

3  Art.  I.;    See  Supra,  Part  I. 

*The  actual  Dutch  settlements  or  "establishments"  were  limited  to  the  tide-water 
region  between  the  Corentyn  and  Essequibo  rivers.  Even  those  on  the  navigable 
rivers  did  not  extend  farther  up  than  sea-tide.  There  was  not  one  on  either  the  Cu- 
yuni  or  Mazaruni  rivers  above  tide-water,  some  ten  or  twelve  miles  from  their  junction 
with  the  Essequibo;  nor  on  the  Essequibo  itself  a  dozen  miles]above  that  junction.  The 
tide-water  region  extends  up  the  Cuyuni  to  the  first  falls,  a  short  distance  from  the 
junction.  From  the  foot  of  these  first  falls  upward,  for  a  distance  of  twenty-five  or 
thirty  miles,  is  a  continuous  cataract  with  a  fall  of  more  than  two  hundred  feet ;  while 
on  the  Essequibo  itself,  some  eighteen  or  twenty  miles'above  the  junction,  are  the  great 
Aretaka  rapids,  full  twenty  miles  in  length.  These  cataracts  constituted  a  natural 
barrier  to  the  interior,  which,  prior  to  1648,  the  Dutch  never  even  attempted  to  pene- 
trate.    (See  Brief  on  Settled  Districts.) 

5  "British  Aggressions,  etc.,  or  The  Monroe  Doctrine  on  Trial,"  Supra.  Whart. 
Dig.,  vol.  I.,  sec.  7. 

6  Blue  Book,  p.  19. 


74 

west  cf  the  Pumaron  River.  Indeed,  there  are  very  grave 
doubts  whether  they  ever,  at  any  time,  held  "  uninterrupted  pos- 
session "  of  any  territory  between  the  Pumaron  and  the  Esse- 
quibo  Rivers,  The  evidence  on  this  latter  point  is  somewhat 
conflicting;  but  the  weight  of  testimony  is  that  the  Essequibo 
was  recognized  as  the  true  divisional  line  between  the  Dutch  and 
Spanish  possessions,  and  that  any  Dutch  incroachments  west  and 
south  of  that  river  were  promptly  (and  generally  successfully) 
resisted  by  the  Spanish  authorities.  The  very  documents  and 
''extracts"  cited  or  produced  in  the  Blue  Book  fail  to  show  to  the 
contrary.  They  show  merely  that  while  the  Dutch  and  Caribs 
had  made  frequent  raids  upon  the  Spanish  settlements  and  mis- 
sions west  of  the  Essequibo,  and  that  even  the  Orinoco  delta 
was  sometimes  infested  by  predatory  bands  of  alien  smugglers, 
slave-traders,  and  pirates,  who  incited  the  Indians  to  insurrec- 
tion and  pillage,  the  right  of,  as  well  as  actual,  domain  and  juris- 
diction always  remained  with  Spain. 1 

The  official  Report  by  Don  Felipe  de  Requena,  of  July  29, 
1802,  is  cited2  to  prove  that  the  Dutch  held  possessions  on  the 
Cuyuni  and  Caroni  rivers.  But  when  read  as  a  whole,  in  the 
original  text,  the  document  fails  to  show  this.  Even  the  partial 
and  carefully  selected  "extracts"  (in  defective  translation),  as 
produced,3  fail  to  establish  the  British  contention  on  this  point. 
It  is  merely  stated  that  the  Dutch  and  French  had,  many  decades 
before,  founded  settlements  on  the  Surinam  and  Cayane  rivers; 
that  the  Dutch  had  subsequently  advanced  some  distance  up  the 
Essequibo  River;  and  that  (if  not  prevented)  they  "might,"  in 
the  course  of  time,  advance  still  further,  by  way  of  the  Cuyuni 
and  Caroni  rivers,  to  the  Orinoco  itself,  and  "take  possession  of 
the  lower  part  of"  the  Orinoco — thus  showing,  by  necessary 
implication,  that  the  Dutch  had  no  possessions,  "settlements,"  or 
even  temporary  stations,  either  in  the  Cuyuni  or  Caroni  valleys, 
or  at  or  near  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  as  late  as  1802. 

Moreover,  the  Report  of   Major  McCreagh   of  the   British 

1  See  "Archivo  de  las  Indias,"  vols.  I.,  II.,  and  III.,  now  before  the  Commission. 

2  Blue  Book,  pp.  21  and  139. 

3  Blue  Book,  App.  II.,  p.  139. 


75 

army,  made  at  the  time  of  the  English  military  occupation  in 
1802,  although  cited  in  the  Blue  Book1  for  a  different  purpose, 
shows  conclusively  that  the  estuaries  of  the  Orinoco,  as  also  the 
entire  river  itself  and  its  confluents,  were  then  under  the 
effective  jurisdiction  of  Spain.  Thus,  Major  McCreagh  reported 
that  he  found  a  Spanish  military  post  near  the  Boca  de  Navios ; 
that  he  found  Spanish  pilots  there  also;  that  some  distance 
further  up  he  found  another  Spanish  military  post,  together  with 
a  Spanish  settlement  of  "eight  houses  and  about  six  Indian  fami- 
lies," the  sergeant  in  command  being  a  white  Spaniard;  that  a 
little  further  up  he  found  still  another  military  force,  in  which 
were  "  about  forty-six  Indians,  supposed  to  be  soldiers,  with  three 
(white)  Spaniards,  besides  the  lieutenant  commanding";  that  yet 
a  little  further  up  he  found  another  Spanish  military  force,  com- 
posed (as  usual)  of  Indians,  whites,  and  Creoles;  but  all  were 
Spanish  subjects,  and  in  the  Spanish  military  and  civic  colonial 
service.  "It  was,"  he  significantly  adds,  "the  rule  to  stop  all 
vessels  here"  (at  a  place  called  Barrancas)  "  except  Spaniards, 
and  even  those  except  such  as  are  specially  privileged.  Ad- 
hering, however,"  he  continues,  "to  the  line  of  conduct  which 
I  had  been  ordered  to  pursue,  I  was,  after  some  delay,  permitted 
to  proceed."  Even  this  ex  parte  statement,  independently  of  the 
overwhelming  testimony  produced  by  Venezuela,  ought  to  be 
sufficient  to  show  the  monstrous  absurdity  of  the  British  claim. 
It  is  contended2  that  the  native  Indian  tribes  in  what  is  now  the 
disputed  territory,  "  had  been  for  a  long  time  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Dutch,"  and  that  this  Protectorate  "  was  continued 
by  the  Representatives  of  Great  Britain."  The  "  contemporary 
reports  of  the  Governors  of  British  Guiana  in  the  early  part 
of  the  19th  century"  are  cited  to  prove  this.  They  however 
prove  only  that  the  Caribs  and  other  hostile  tribes  had,  at  differ- 
ent times,  been  in  "alliances  "  with  the  Dutch,  who  had  been  in 
the  habit  of  making  them  "  annual  presents."  There  is  absolutely 
nothing  to  show  that  any  Dutch  "Protectorates"  of  the  Indians 
ever  really  existed. 


1app-  11.,  P.  154. 

2  Blue  Book,  p.  22. 


76 

But  even  if  they  had  existed  (which  nowhere  appears),  how- 
were  they  transferred  to  England  by  the  cession  of  1814?  Noth- 
ing is  therein  said  either  of  "Protectorates"  or  of  the  office  of 
"Protector  of  Indians."  The  cession  was  specifically  limited  to 
the  three  "settlements  of  Berbice,  Demerara,  and  Essequibo." 
Surinam  was  beyond  the  limits  of  the  three  "settlements"  named; 
therefore  Surinam  remained  a  Dutch  possession.  Indian  Protec- 
torates (if  there  were  any)  were  beyond  the  limits  of  the  three 
♦'settlements"  specified;  therefore,  Indian  Protectorates  (if  there 
were  any)  remained  to  the  Dutch. 

The  destruction  of  a  Spanish  Mission  in  the  interior  of  Guay- 
ana,  by  the  Venezuelan  Revolutionary  forces  in  18 16,  and  the 
Executive  decree  of  General  Bolivar,  of  1817,  are  both  cited  '  in 
support  of  the  English  contention. 

The  first  named  proves  nothing  ;  the  second  proves  too  much- 

As  to  the  first,  the  Venezuelan  patriots  were  then  in  the  midst 
of  their  long  struggle  for  independence.  They  were  at  war  with 
the  mother  country,  and  war  meant  the  destruction  of  the  enemy's- 
strongholds  and  strategic  points  wherever  and  whenever  that 
was  possible. 

As  to  the  second,  the  Executive  Decree  of  General  Bolivar 
named  Colonel  (afterwards  General)  Sucre  to  be  "  Governor  of 
the  old  Fort  of  Guayana,"  and  likewise  to  be  "Military  Governor 
of  the  Orinoco  to  the  old  mouth  ";  the  necessary  inference  being^ 
that  the  whole  region  of  the  Orinoco,  from  the  Delta  upwards, 
was  then  under  the  effective  jurisdiction  of  the  Venezuelan 
Revolutionary  government  as  the  successor  of  Spain.  More- 
over, the  statement  (on  page  23  of  the  Blue  Book),  that  "in 
1817,  General  Bolivar,  President  of  Colombia  (with  which 
Venezuela  was  then  incorporated),  whose  headquarters  were  at 
Angostura,  issued  a  decree,"  etc,  is  incorrect.  In  181 7,  General 
Bolivar  was  not  "  President  of  Colombia,"  nor  was  Venezuela 
then  "incorporated"  in  Colombia;  because  Colombia  did  not 
then  exist.  The  preliminary  union  between  Venezuela  and  New 
Granada,  which  afterwards  became  known  as  the  Republic  of 


1  Blue  Book,  p.  23. 


77 

Colombia,  did  not  take  place  till  December  17,  18 19,  and  was 
not  finally  ratified  till  August  30,  1S21  .* 

It  is  stated  in  the  Blue  Book  (p.  24)  that  Venezuela  "declared 
her  individual  independence"  in  1830  !  Venezuela  formally  "de- 
clared her  individual  independence-"  July  5,  181 1  ;  and  she  had 
maintained  that  "individual  independence"  up  to  1819,  when  she 
became  a  constituent  member  of  the  old  Colombian  Confedera- 
tion. In  1830,  she  withdrew  from  that  compact  of  union  and 
resumed  her  separate  nationality.2  Even  a  superficial  knowledge 
of  Spanish  colonial  history,  or  the  slightest  acquaintance  with 
the  terms  of  the  Compact  of  18 19,  leaves  little  excuse  for  such 
ludicrous  blunders  as  this. 

Recurring  to  the  subject  of  Indian  "Protectorates,"  documents 
are  cited  in  the  Blue  Book3  to  sustain  the  assumption  (made  on 
page  24)  that  England,  as  the  successor  in  the  title  of  Holland, 
exercised  jurisdiction  "for  a  considerable  distance  up  the  rivers 
Essequibo,  Mazaruni,  and  Cuyuni"  as  late  as  1831.  The  reply 
might  be  made  that,  even  if  true,  such  an  act  of  jurisdiction  was 
manifestly  illegal,  in  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  very  terms  of 
the  various  treaties  under  which  England  holds  title.  But  the 
assumption  is  itself  untrue.  It  is  not  sustained,  even  by  the  care- 
fully selected  "extracts"  produced  in  its  support.  Briefly,  the 
case  is  this: 

A  murder  had  been  committed  by  an  Indian  beyond  the  im- 
mediate frontiers  of  the  Essequibo  "settlement."  He  was  ar- 
rested and  brought  to  trial  before  the  British  colonial  authorities. 
The  venue  was  beyond  the  limits  of  the  colony,  and  in  a  region 
inhabited  by  Indians.  The  murdered  person  was  likewise  a 
resident  Indian.  But  it  was  held  that  the  old  Dutch  "  Protec- 
torate of  Indians"  had  extended  over  that  particular  region, 
and  that  this  ''Protectorate"  had  descended  to  the  English. 
The  accused  was  accordingly    tried  and  convicted  ;  but  he  was 


1  Restrepo,     Hist.   Colombia ;    Arosamena,   Constituciones    Politicas  de     America 
Meridional,  vol.  II.;  ^See  also  Caracas  Brief  or  "  Reply  to  the  Blue  Book." 

3  Arosamena,  Const.  Politicas  de  Amer.  Meridional ;  Restrepo.  Hist.  Colombia;  See 
also  Paez,  Bello,  Rojas,  Seijas,  and  other  standard  authors. 

1  App.  II.,  pp.  68-77. 


78 

soon  after  released  on  appeal ;  because  the  evidence  at  the 
trial  had  disclosed  that  the  so-called  "  Protectorate "  was  a 
myth.  A  former  official  of  the  Dutch  colony  (van  Ryck, 
by  name),  testified  that  he  had  "lived  forty  years"  in  the  colony, 
and  had  held  the  office  of  "Protector  of  the  Indians";  that  in  that 
capacity  he  had  always  acted  "only  as  mediator,"  never  as  a 
magistrate;  that  he  had  "no  authority  to  compel  attendance"; 
that  he,  in  fact,  "had  nothing  to  do  unless  they  (the  Indians) 
chose  to  call  on"  him  as  "mediator";  that  he  "had  no  authority 
over  them";  that  he  "never  had  any  authority  to  interfere"  with 
them,  and  certainly  no  jurisdiction  over  them;  and  that  he  was 
merely  "authorized  to  give  them  presents,"  and  to  cultivate  them 
"as friends  and  allies"1 

Again,  it  is  gravely  stated2  that  some  time  about  1831,  Protes- 
tant Missionaries,  from  England,  visited  and  preached  the  Gospel 
to  the  natives  on  the  lower  Mazaruni  and  Cuyuni  rivers.  It  is 
even  hinted  that  these  Christian  teachers  erected  preaching  sta- 
tions and  chapels  there.  The  fact  is  not  proven.  But  assum- 
ing that  it  may  be,  what  then?  The  same  is  true  to-day  of  North 
American  and  English  Protestant  teachers  in  various  parts  of 
Venezuela,  Colombia,  and  Mexico;  but  never  before  has  it  been 
alleged  that  such  acts  transfer  domain  and  jurisdiction  to  the 
countries  of  these  Missionaries! 

The  supplementary  edition  of  the  Blue  Book  of  July,  1896, 
opens  with  the  half  apoligetic  statement  that  "  the  territory  which 
belongs  to  a  nation  in  a  country  sparsely  populated,"  as  in  Guay- 
ana,  "  is  not  confined  to  the  spots  or  areas  which  have  themselves 
been  subject  to  occupation";  but  that  "the  extent  of  the  terri- 
tory to  which  a  nation  can  justly  lay  claim  depends  upon  a  num- 
ber of  considerations,"  such  as  "  the  physical  features  of  the 
country  itself,"  and  "  whether  the  situation  and  character  of  the 
areas  occupied  would  enable  the   nation  to  which  the  occupants 


1Even  if  the  facts  had  been  otherwise,  it  would  be  a  work  of  supererogation  to  prove 
that  "Indian  Protectorates"  on  this  continent  by  any  European  power  other  than  the 
original  discoverer  or  its  legal  successor,  are  absolute  nullities.  See  Wharton's  Digest, 
Vol  I.,  sec.  7;  also  supra,  "Monroe  Doct.  on  Trial,"  loc.  cit. 

2  Blue  Book,  p.  24. 


79 

belong  to  control  the  adjoining  district."  In  other  words,  the 
rule  of  contiguity  is  invoked  in  justification  of  the  recently  en- 
larged British  claim  to  unoccupied  territory  in  the  remote  interior 
of  Guayana.1 

But,  under  this  rule,  as  will  be  shown  in  a  separate  Brief, 
-Spain,  as  the  original  discoverer  and  occupant  of  the  country 
was  the  legitimate  owner  of  the  interior.  Consequently,  what 
was  not  permanently  occupied  by  the  Dutch  prior  to  1648,  re- 
mained a  Spanish  possession,  and  legitimately  descended  to 
Venezuela  in  18 10.  It  has  been  many  times  pointed  out  that 
the  cession  of  1648  was  limited  to  actual  Dutch  settlements  or 
•"  establishments."  It  did  not  include  a  foot  of  unoccupied  terri- 
tory. That  remained  a  Spanish  possession.  Therefore,  Holland, 
through  whom  Great  Britain  derived  title,  could  lay  no  valid 
claim  to  such  territory  ;  and  having  no  valid  claim  of  her  own, 
she  could  have  conveyed  none  to  England  by  the  treaty  of  1814. 

Moreover,  the  physical  features  and  character  of  the  country 
itself  are  not  such  as  would  have  enabled  the  Dutch  settlers  on 
the  coast  and  river  estuaries  to  control  it,  nor  did  they  in  fac- 
ever  control  it.  The  great  interior  basin  of  the  Cuyuni-Maza- 
runi  is  surrounded  north,  east,  and  south  by  a  rim  of  high  moun- 
tains. It  may  be  compared  to  a  huge  oblong  dish  which  dips 
northeastward  in  such  a  manner  as  to  throw  all  its  waters  to  a 
single  point,  where  they  break  through  a  gap  or  fissure  of  this 
mountain  wall,  and  pass  down  over  a  series  of  long  and  steep 
cataracts  into  the  Essequibo.  The  natural  approaches  to  this 
great  interior  basin  were  not,  therefore,  through  these  narrow  and 
precipitous  mountain  gorges,  but  from  the  Orinoco  side  over  the 
more  gradual  and  gentle  slopes  of  the  great  savannahs.  It  was 
from  this  side  that  the  Spaniards  penetrated  the  great  Cuyuni- 
Mazaruni  basin,  explored  it  early  in  the  16th  century,  subse- 
quently planted  settlements  and  established  missions  and  cattle 
ranches  there,  held  it  against  all  second  comers,  prevented  hos- 
tile aggression  from  the  Essequibo  side,  and,  in  short,  effectually 
controlled  it  for  more  than  two  centuries.2 


'Supp.  Blue  Book,  "Venezuela  No.  3,"  July,  1896,  p.  1. 
2  See  Spanish  Colonial  Archives  (Seville),  vols.  II.  and  III. 


80 

Even,  "the  celebrated  remonstrance"  of  1769,  made  by  the 
States-General  upon  the  ex  parte  (and  generally  inaccurate)  rep- 
resentations of  van's  Gravesand,  and  which  is  now  introduced  as 
evidence  in  support  of  the  British  claim,  conceded  to  Spain  the 
territory  in  which  "the  new  missionary  settlements"  and  their 
adjacent  cattle  ranches  were  situated  ;  that  is,  all  territory  above 
the  new  Dutch  outpost  at  Caramacura  which  was  broken  up  and 
destroyed  by  the  Spaniards  in  1758.  And  it  is  furthermore  ad- 
mitted, even  in  the  extracts  from  the  same  remonstrance,  that 
the  Spaniards  had  "made  themselves  masters"  of  the  new  trading 
post  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Moroco.1 

Again,  on  pages  4  and  26  of  the  Supplemental  Blue  Book, 
we  have  the  assertion  that  "  for  200  hundred  years  prior  to  1796 
the  Dutch  had  the  effective  command  of  the  coast  as  far  as  the 
Orinoco."  But  200  years  prior  to  1796  takes  us  back  to  the 
date  of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh's  first  expedition,  before  the  Dutch 
had  yet  visited  the  country  ;  and  yet  Raleigh  then  found  the 
Spaniards  in  full  possession,  as  has  been  already  pointed  out. 
Captain  Keymis,  who  visited  the  country  twenty  years  later, 
found  the  Spaniards  established  in  the  Essequibo,  and  in  full  pos- 
session of  the  coast  to  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  and  of  the  in- 
terior Cuyuni  basin.  Indeed,  it  is  an  incontrovertible  historical 
fact  that  the  Dutch  made  no  attempt  to  establish  settlements  on 
the  coast  or  elsewhere  in  Guayana  until  after  Raleigh's  first  expe- 
dition, nearly  a  century  after  the  Spaniards  held  the  whole  country.2 
With  respect  to  the  Cuyuni  basin,  prior  to  1750  not  a  Dutch- 
man had  been  seen  in  it  farther  up  than  the  Mazaruni  junction,  or 
at  farthest,  above  the  great  falls  in  the  Cuyuni;  and  the  disas- 
trous attempt,  in  1758,  to  establish  a  Dutch  outpost  above  those 
falls  was  never  repeated  .3 

Again,  copious  but  adroitly  selected  "extracts"  are  produced 
from  the  official  Reports  and  accompanying  documents  of  Don 

*Supp.  Blue  Book,  pp.  169-171. 

2  See  Brief  on  "  Settled  Districts,"  and  the  authorities  there  cited,  by  Mr.  Storrow. 

3  See  Archivo  General  de  las  Indias,  now  before  the  Commission  in  certified  copies, 
vols.  II.  and  III.;    Also  authorities  cited  in  the  Caracas  Brief. 


81 

Maguel  Marmion,  Governor-General  of  Guayana  in  1788-90  to 
prove  that  "the  Spaniards  regarded  the  junction  of  the  Curumo 
and  Uruan  with  the  Cuyuni  as  their  frontier  in  that  direction  ; 
and  that  the  establishment  of  the  post  in  question  (at  the  mouth 
of  the  Curumo)  was  recommended  in  order  to  prevent  the  Dutch, 
who  had  already  advanced  right  up  the  Cuyuni  and  made  set- 
tlements there,  from  coming  still  further,  and  taking  possession 
of  the  (Spanish)  mission  villages  themselves."1 

But  even  these  "  extracts,"  so  arranged  as  to  very  materially 
modify,  if  not  entirely  change  the  manifest  meaning  of  the  writer, 
fail  utterly  to  support  this  monstrous  assumption.2  The  certified 
copies  of  the  original  documents,  now  before  the  Boundary  Com- 
mission, when  carefully  read  as  a  whole,  and  especially  when 
studied  in  connection  with  the  contemporaneous  maps  and  papers 
produced,  prove  just  the  contrary.  They  establish  conclusively 
that  the  farthest  Dutch  settlement  was  near  the  junction  of 
the  Mazaruni  with  the  Cuyuni,  something  less  than  a  dozen 
miles  from  the  right  bank  of  the  Essequibo  ;  the  country 
intervening  between  that  settlement  and  the  Spanish  mission 
towns  and  villages  being  for  the  most  part  a  wilderness  inhabited 
by  wild  Indians  or  by  runaway  negro  slaves  ;  that  the  Spaniards 
had  never  relinquished  their  claim  to  this  intervening  territory, 
and  were  even  then  considering  measures  for  peopling  it  with 

1  Supp.  Blue  Book,  pp.  19-25-316. 

2 Not  only  are  there  many  conspicuous  omissions  of  whole  paragraphs,  and  even 
pages,  that  are  essential  to  a  correct  understanding  of  the  writer's  meaning  ;  but  para- 
graphs from  a  paper  of  a  different  date  are  sometimes  inserted  as  integral  parts  of  the 
text.  In  some  instances,  parts  of  sentences  are  united  to  those  farther  on  in  the  same 
paper,  the  omission  of  intervening  clauses  not  being  indicated  by  the  usual  marks  or 
asterisks.  If  this  be  chargeable  to  carelessness  or  .incompetency  on  the  part  of  the  cop- 
iest  or  translator,  that  fact  will  hardly  atone  for  the  fault.  Another  instance  of  reckless 
"editing  "  is  observed  on  pages  5  and  56  of  the  Blue  Book.  On  page  5  it  is  alleged 
that,  a  few  years  prior  to  the  treaty  of  Munster,  the  Dutch  settlements  extended  to  the 
Orinoco.  In  support  of  this  allegation,  the  following  sentence  is  quoted  as  coming 
from  the  secret  Reports  addressed  to  the  Spanish  government  :  "  The  Dutch  settlements 
in  Guayana  extend  from  close  to  the  River  Amazones  to  the  Orinoco."  Marginal  cita- 
tions are  made  of  "  Bibliotheca  del  Rev,  Madrid,  M.  S.,"  and  of  extracts  in  "Appendix 
I.,  p.  56,"  of  the  Blue  Book  itself.  But  neither  in  the  papers  cited,  nor  in  the  very 
"  extracts  "  produced,  is  there  any  such  sentence,  nor  anything  like  it,  nor  any  clause 
that  can  properly  be  construed  into  such  meaning. 


82 

emigrants  from  Spain  and  from  the  New  Kingdom  of  Santa  Fe ; 
and  that  the  proposed  military  fortification  or  station  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Curumo  was  not  only  to  protect  the  mission  settlements 
and  their  extensive  cattle  ranches  against  depredations  by  the 
Indians,  but  to  prevent  the  Dutch  slave-traders  and  their  Carib 
allies  from  kidnapping  Indians  in  this  intervening  Spanish  terri- 
tory and  carrying  them  as  slaves  to  the  Essequibo  colony.1 

III. 

In  May,  1836,  and  again  in  September  of  the  same  year,  Sir 
Robert  Ker  Porter,  the  British  diplomatic  Agent  at  Caracas, 
addressed  a  formal  note  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  affairs,  re- 
questing the  Venezuelan  Government  to  establish  and  maintain 
buoys  and  beacons  at  the  very  places  on  the  main  estuary  of  the 
Orinoco  (including  Point  Barima)  now  claimed  and  forcibly 
held  as  British  territory.  And  it  is  admitted  2  that  this  fact  was 
known  at  the  British  Foreign  Office,  certainly  as  early  as  1842, 
if  not  before.  But  now,  sixty  years  after  this  formal  request  was 
made,  and  at  least  fifty-four  years  after  it  is  admitted  to  have  be- 
come known  at  the  Foreign  Office,  Her  Majesty's  Government 
gravely  disclaims  and  disavows  this  official  act  of  their  duly  ac- 
credited Representative!5  Moreover,  it  is  seriously  asserted4 
that  "the  Venezuelan  Government  never  returned  any  reply"  to 
Sir  Robert's  official  request!  Turning,  however,  to  page  245  of 
the  Blue  Book  itself,  we  find  there  reproduced,  in  somewhat  de- 


1  Archivo  General  de  las  Indias,  certified  copies,  in  original  and  translation,  vol.  III., 
No.  XVIII.,  pp.  22  et  seq. 

2  Blue  Book,  p.  26. 

3  In  making  this  disclaimer,  in  1886,  the  statement  is  added  that  Sir  Robert  Kerr 
Porter's  letters  were  "  never  even  reported  "  to  the  Foreign  Office,  which  is  incorrect. 
In  May,  1842,  when  Sir  Robert's  successor  (Mr.  O'Leary)  alluded  to  them,  the  British 
Foreign  Office  replied  that  copies  could  not  be  found  ;  whereupon  Mr.  O'Leary  trans- 
mitted copies.  (See  Official  Hist.,  171.)  Granting,  however,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu- 
ment that  the  British  Foreign  Office  knew  nothing  of  these  letters,  or  that  it  was  not 
bound  by  them,  they  establish  the  fact,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  British  Representa- 
tive himself,  that,  in  1836,  Venezuela  did  control  the  Orinoco  mouth,  and  did  then 
exercise  domain  and  jurisdiction  at  Point  Barima. 

4  Blue  Book,  p.  26. 


83 

fective  translation,  a  formal  official  reply  by  the  Venezuelan  Gov- 
ernment, dated  June  15,  1836,  promising  compliance  with  Sir 
Robert's  request.  It  may  be  added  that,  after  some  delay,  this 
promise  was  fulfilled.  The  buoys  and  beacons  were  duly  estab- 
lished by  Venezuela.  They  were  found  there  in  1876,  and  were 
there  in  1886,  when  the  English  took  armed  possession  of  those 
places  in  open  violation  of  her  repeated  pledges.1 

Up  to  1839,  not  a  single  maP  could  be  found  on  which  was 
traced  a  divisional  line  west  of  Cape  Nassau.  A  few  of  the 
maps  of  that  time  gave  Cape  Nassau  as  the  starting  point,  and 
the  Moroco  river  as  the  line.  A  very  much  larger  number  gave 
Cape  Nassau  as  the  starting  point  and  the  Pumaron  river  as  the 
line.  Others,  more  recent  and  authentic,  including  Myers  and 
other  eminent  English  geographers,  gave  the  western  estuary  of 
the  Essequibo  as  the  starting  point,and  the  river  Essequibo  itself 
as  the  true  divisional  line.2  So  that,  up  to  1839,  tne  onb'  terri- 
tory  in  dispute  was,  at  most,  the  narrow,  triangular  strip  between 
the  Moroco  and  Essequibo,  and  extending  southeastward  to  near 
the  junction  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Mazaruni  rivers .  Up  to  that 
time,  Venezuela's  title  to  the  vast  domain  between  the  Pumaron 
and  Orinoco  had  never  been  disputed. 

In  1S40  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  Robert)  Schomburgk  was  em- 
ployed by  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  "survey  and  mark  out" 
the  frontier  boundaries  of  British  Guiana.  It  was  purely  an 
ex-parte  arrangement,  and  therefore  of  no  validity  whatever. 
Venezuela  was  not  asked  to  participate  in  it,  nor  was  her  assent 
solicited.  Then  it  was,  for  the  first  time,  that  "a  map  was  pre- 
pared," purporting  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  Schomburgk 
survey,  but  in  reality  in  alteration  of  that  survey,  which  extended 


1  Certified  copies  of  official  papers  showing  this  are  now  before  the  Commission. 

2  The  better  opinion  seems  to  be  that,  whilst  the  Dutch  were  never  awarded  eminent 
domain  west  of  the  Essequibo  river,  which  was  regarded  as  the  frontier  limit  of  the  cession 
of  1648,  their  temporary  outposts  on  the  Pumaron  (originally  established  for  the  appre- 
hension of  fugitive  slaves)  were  at  one  time  tolerated  by  the  Spaniards.  But  after  the 
extradition  Treaty  of  1791,  which,  by  fair  construction,  indicated  the  Essequibo  as  the 
true  divisional  line,  these  outposts  were  deemed  unnecessarv-  Hence,  when  not  aban- 
doned, or  when  attempted  to  be  re-established,  they  were  regarded  by  the  Spaniards 
as  aggressions  upon  their  territory,  and  resisted  as  such. 


84 

the  British  claim  to  the  lower  Orinoco  and  to  the  Mazaruni  and 
Cuyuni  basins  above  Acarabisi  creek.  This  capricious  line 
(known  as  "the  Schomburgk  line")  was  tentative  merely.  It 
represented  not  an  actual,  but  only  a  possible  future  claim  by 
Great  Britain.  It  was  professedly  established  "only  as  a  prelim- 
inary measure"  to  the  negotiation  of  boundary  treaties  with  "ad- 
jacent countries."  If  case  those  countries  should  make  "any  ob- 
jections," "Her  Majesty's  Government"  would  "give  such  an- 
swers as  might  appear  proper  and  just."1 

Venezuela  did  make  "objections."  She  not  only  objected,  but 
remonstrated  and  protested.  She  not  only  remonstrated  and 
protested,  but  refused,  absolutely,  to  enter  into  any  negotiation 
of  a  boundary  treaty  so  long  as  that  arbitrary  line  should  be  al- 
lowed to  stand.2  Finally,  the  "Schomburgk  line"  was  explicitly 
disclaimed,  and  its  marks  and  posts  ordered  obliterated  or  taken 
down.3  Then  it  was  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  indicated 
Cape  Nassau  as  the  starting  point  of  a  divisional  line,  which, 
crossing  the  Cuyuni  below  the  Acarabisi,  terminated  near  the 
6ist  meridian,  between  the  5th  and  6th  parallels.4 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  may  well  seem  incredible  that, 
forty-three  years  later,  the  question  of  boundary  being  still  un- 
settled, and  the  agreement  of  18505  still  in  force,  that  the  dis- 
carded "Schomburgk  line"  should  be  revived  and  claimed  by 
Her  Majesty's  Government  as  an  absolute  boundary  within  which 
no  proposition  looking  to  peaceful  arbitration  would  be  enter- 
tained! It  is  even  more  incredible,  if  possible,  that  in  order  to 
sustain  this  untenable  position,  there  should  be  produced  a  care- 
fully selected  and  very  misleading  "extract"  from  a  letter  dated 


1  See  Letter  of  Lord  Levesento  Mr.  James  Stephen,'March,  1840,  now  before  the  Com- 
mission in  certified  copy.  See  also  "Official  Hist.  Discus.,  etc.,  on  Guayana  Bounda- 
ries," 1896,  likewise  before  the  Commission  ;  See  also  Sup7-a,  Part  I. 

2  See  Dr.  Fortique  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  Nov.  18,  1841;  also,  same  to  same,  Dec.  8, 
1841;  also,  same  to  same,  Jan.  10,  1842;  "Official  Hist.  Discus.,"  etc. 

3  See  Lord  Aberdeen  to  Dr.  Fortique,  Jan.  31,  1842,  "Official  Hist.  Dis. 

4  Official  Hist.  Discus.,  etc.,  pp.  18-32. 

5  See  supra,  "Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes,"  "Brit.  Agr.,  or  Monroe  Doct.  on  Trial," 
"Official  Hist.  Discuss.,  Guayana  Boundaries,"  part  IV.,  pp.   33-38. 


85 

July  15,  1839,  addressed  to  the  Marquis  of  Normanby  by  Gov- 
ernor Light  of  Demerara.1 

Elsewhere  in  the  Blue  Book,2  it  is  stated  that  Venezuela's  first 
formal  "claim  that  the  territory  of  the  Republic  extended  to  the 
Essequibo"  was  made  in  1844.  The  first  formal  claim  to  that 
limit  was  put  forth  by  Venezuela  as  early  as  1822,  as  has  been 
shown  already;3  and  that  claim  has  been  persistently  and  consist- 
ently maintained,  from  that  time  to  the  present,  whenever  the 
question  was  up  for  discussion. 

That  portion  of  the  Blue  Book  covering  the  period  from  1850 
to  date,  seems  to  have  been  anticipated  by  Lord  Salisbury  in  his 
note  of  November  last;  and  since  all  the  points  therein  have  re- 
ceived due  attention  already,4  it  is  not  worth  while  to  go  over 
the  ground  again. 

There  remains,  however,  one  feature  of  the  British  contention, 
not  hitherto  very  prominent,  yet  ever  lurking  in  the  background, 
which  deserves  special  notice.  If  the  recent  "inspired"  utter- 
ances by  some  of  the  London  court  journals  are  to  be  credited,  it 
is  now  conceded  that  the  capricious  "Schomburgkline"  will  have 
to  be  again  abandoned.  That  arbitrary  line  is  no  longer  claimed 
as  an  absolute  limit,  within  which  no  proposal  for  arbitration  can 
be  entertained.  But  it  is  contended  that  all  "settled  districts" 
within  that  line,  or  even  those  beyond  it,  must  be  exempted  from 
arbitration.  Her  Majesty's  Government  no  longer  claims  "inde- 
feasible title"  to  the  soil:  it  is  stated  only  that  "British  subjects" 
are  settled  there,  and  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  must  pro- 
tect them  in  their  interests!  This,  in  brief,  is  understood  to  be 
the  gist  of  the  present  contention. 

It  has  been  many  times  shown  that  every  "British  settlement," 

1Blue  Book,  App.  p.  81.  Compare  this  "extract"  with  certified  copy  of  the  original, 
now  before  the  Commission.  Courtesy  forbids  the  use  of  the  only  word  that  ade- 
quately describes  this  "extract." 

2  Page  27. 

3  "Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes,"  supra;  MS.  Instruc.  to  Colombian  Minister  at  London, 
1822;     "Official  History  of  the  Boundary  Dispute,"  etc. 

*  See  "Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes;"  See  also  Memorandum,  of  March,  1896,  by  the 
'Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  now  before  the  Commission. 


86 

and  every  police  station  and  mining  camp,  west  of  the  Essequibo, 
whether  large  or  small,  was  placed  there  over  the  protests  and 
remonstrances  of  the  Venezuelan  Government.1  And  it  has  been 
quite  as  often  pointed  out  that  every  such  settlement  or  mining 
camp,  large  or  small,  west  of  the  Moroco  and  southward  of  the 
Cuyuni  was  planted  there  in  open  violation  of  the  Agreement 
of  1850.2  Moreover,  it  is  well  known  that  in  January,  1S67,  and 
again  as  late  as  June,  1887 — that  is  to  say,  twenty-one  years  be- 
fore, and  again  more  than  a  whole  year  after,  England  took 
forcible  possession  of  Barima  Point  and  the  Amacura  mouth — 
the  Governor  of  British  Guiana  declared  officially  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  would  not  undertake  to  guarantee  protec- 
tion or  compensation  to  British  miners  and  settlers  in  those 
localities  in  case  the  boundary  question  should  be  decided  in  favor 
of  Venezuela.3 

In  view  of  these  facts,  this  latest  phase  of  the  British  conten- 
tion may  well  excite  surprise,  if  not  grave  apprehension.  If 
mere  de  facto  British  "settlements,"  however  recent,  and  how- 
ever illegal  in  origin,  are  to  constitute  a  basis  of  British  claim  to 
domain  and  jurisdiction  in  one  part  of  Venezuela,  they  may  do 
so  in  other  parts  of  the  Republic.  If  in  any  part  of  Venezuela, 
then  why  not  in  any  part  of  any  other  Central  or  South  American 
State  ?  And  if  the  principle  is  to  be  admitted  with  respect  to 
all  Central  and  South  American  States,  why  exclude  Mexico,  or 
even  one  of  the  Territories  or  Commonwealths  of  the  United 
States  of  North  America  ? 

It  is  precisely  this  ever-present  feature  of  the  boundary  ques- 
tion in  Guayana  that  has  so  justly  alarmed  the  South  American 
States,  and  given  the  case  such  international  importance.  No 
one  needs  to  be  told  that  territory  thus  acquired  by  a  European 
power,  is  essentially  an   act  of    war.     If  not,  then   it  must  be 


^'British  Aggression  in  Venezuela,  etc.,"  IV. ;  "Official  Hist.,  etc.,  Boundary  Dis- 
cus.," I.,  II.,  III.,  IV.,  V.,  VI.,  VII.;  Also  correspondence  therein  between  General 
Blanco  and  Earl  Granville,  and  his  successors,  pp.  81-168. 

2  "  Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes,"  supra,  Part  II. 

3  See  certified  copies  of  these  official  proclamations,  now  before  the  Boundary  Com- 
mission. 


87 

characterized  as  an  act  of  piracy.  Take  either  horn  of  the  di- 
lemma ;  the  fact  remains,  as  has  been  clearly  shown  in  Mr.  Olney's 
note  of  July,  1895,  that  it  is  as  much  a  violation  of  the  Mon- 
roe Declaration  of  1823,  and  in  fact  of  every  recognized  principle 
of  modern  international  ethics,  as  if  the  territory  had  been  seized 
and  wrested  by  British  troops  or  covered  by  British  fleets. 

William  L.  Scruggs, 

Legal  Adviser  of  the  Venezuelan 

Government,  and  Special  Counsel 

before  the  Boundary  Commission. 


APPENDIX. 


List  of  Documents  and  Papers  submitted  by  Venezuela  to 
the  Commission  appointed  "to  investigate  and  report  upon 
the  true  divisional  line  between  the  republic  of  vene- 
ZUELA AND  British  Guiana,"  1896. 

1.  "Official  History  of  the  Discussion  between  Venezuela  and  Great 
Britain  on  their  Guayana  Boundaries,"  pp.  440;  with  colored  map 
showing  different  lines  proposed  by  Great  Britain.  This  compila- 
tion contains  all  the  diplomatic  correspondence  and  protocols  in  the 
case,  1822-1895. 

2.  "  Libro  Amarillo  de  los  Estados  Unidos  de  Venezuela,  Dirigido  al 
Congreso  Nacional,"  3  vols. ,  1892-3-4:  containing  official  record 
of  the  case. 

3.  Report  by  Dr.   R.  F.  Seijas,  Special  Commissioner  of  Venezuela, 

on  "the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  disputed  territory,"  March,  1890. 

4.  Report  and  maps  by  Dr.  Muiios  Teber,  Special  Commissioner  of 
Venezuela,  on  the  condition  and  settlement  of  territory  usurped  by 
Great  Britain,  etc.     Caracas,  1887. 

5.  "Venezuelan  International  Law,  or  British  Boundaries  in  Guayana." 
By  R.  F.  Seijas.  Paris,  1888.  This  valuable  compilation  contains 
all  the  ancient  Treaties  and  official  Papers  connected  with  the  ante- 
cedents of  the  case. 

6.  "  The  Right  of  Venezuela  in  the  Boundary  Question  with  England," 
by  Eduardo  Calcano. 

7.  Meyer's  Geography,  vols.  I.  and  II.,  with  maps.  London,  1822; 
a  semi-official  British  publication  showing  the  Essequibo  river  as 
the  true  divisional  line. 

8.  "Nuvo  Specchio  Geografico-Storico-Politico,  Di  Tutte  Naziono  del 
Globe,"  etc.,  Tomo  II:  Venezia,  MDCCLXXII. 

9  "Dizionario  Storico-Geografico  Del  1'Amerique  Meridiona,"  etc.: 
"Collect,  della  Compagnia  di  Yesu  "  :  Venice,  MDCCLXXI. 
10.  "  Le  Moniteur  des  Indes,  Orientales  et  Occidentals,  Recueil  de 
Memories  et  Noticies  Scientifiques  et  Industries,"  etc.  Published 
under  the  auspices  of  "  S.  A.  R.  Monsigneur  le  Prince  Henry  des 
Pays-Bas."  By  Ph.  Fr.  de  Siebold  and  P.  Melville:  The  Hague, 
1846. 


89 

ii.  "  Travels  in  South  America  during  the  years  1801,  1802,  1803,  and 
1804:  Containing  a  description  of  the  Captain-Generalship  of 
Caracas.     By  F.  Depons  :     London,  1807. 

12.  "  Historia  Coro-Grafico  Natural  y  Evangelica  de  la  Nueva  Andalu- 
cia  Provincias  de  Cumana,  Guayana,  y  Vertientes  del  Rio  Orinoco," 
etc.     By  M.  R.  P.  Fr.  Antonio  Caulin  :    Madrid,  1779,  with  map. 

13.  "History  of  South  America,"  etc.  By  John  M.  Niles  :  Hartford, 
1839. 

14.  "A  New  Map  of  South  America,"  by  W.  Fadden,  Geographer  to 
H.  M.,  etc.,  the  Prince  of  Wales:     Charing  Cross,  1807. 

15.  Archivo  de  las  Indias  (Seville)  y  de  las  Semancas  :  1629-1790:  vols. 
I,  II,  III,  pp.  795  :  Being  a  collection  of  certified  copies  of  original 
manuscripts  in  the  Spanish  Colonial  Archives  at  Seville,  Madrid, 
and  Caracas,  covering  the  period  from  1629  to  1790,  and  contain- 
ing all  the  official  Correspondence,  Reports,  Rescrips,  Cedulas, 
etc.,  bearing  upon  the  ancient  Spanish  and  Dutch  settlements  in 
Guayana.  These  papers  have  been  carefully  translated  into  Eng- 
lish and  published  in  three  volumes  by  the  Venezuelan  government. 

16.  Accompanying  the  above  named  Archives  is  a  collection  of  rare 
old  maps  (some  150  in  number),  covering  the  period  from  1648  to 
1810. 

17.  "  Noticias  Historiales  de  los  Conquistas  de  Tierra  Firma  en  las  In- 
dias Occidentals, "  etc.,  etc.  By  Fr.  Pedro  Simon  ;  1626.  (Bogota 
Edition,  1882,  by  Rivas.) 

18.  Certified  copies  of  official  publications  by  the  Government  of  British 
Guiana  in  1815;  showing  absence  of  any  British  or  Dutch  settle- 
ments, or  of  British  jurisdiction,  beyond  the  western  estuary 
of  the  Essequibo  river,  or  above  tidewater  on  that  river  or  on  the 
Cuyuni. 

19.  Certified  copies  of  official  Papers  published  in  the  "Local  Guide," 

Demerara,  of  1815-1819;  containing  An  Act,  promulgated 
September  21,  18 13,  making  regulations  respecting  rewards  for  the 
apprehension  and  delivery  of  runaway  slaves,  and  incidentally 
showing  the  jurisdictional  limits  of  the  British  Colony  to  be  the 
Pumaron  river ;  Schedule  fees  for  service  of  Process,  fixing 
jurisdictional  limits  at  the  Pumaron  ;  alphabetical  list  of  the  west 
seacoast  plantations,  showing  that  the  most  westerly  one  ("  Caledo- 
nia ")  to  be  east  of  the  Pumaron  ;  Militia  Regulations  of  June  5, 
181 7,  wherein  it  appears  there  were  no  militia  districts  or  companies 
west  of  the  Pumaron  ;  Decree  regulating  journeys  of  process  and 
attendances,  but  making  no  mention  of  any  west  of  the  Pumaron. 


90 

20.  Certified  copies  of  British  Demeraran  Census  Reports  of  1843  r 
showing  the  total  population  of  the  whole  colony  then  to  have  been 
but  21,509  souls;  and  that  there  were  then  no  British  settlers  west 
of  the  Pumaron  river. 

21.  Certified  copy  of  the  Proclamation  of  January  30,  1867,  by  the 
Governor  of  British  Guiana,  warning  British  subjects  not  to  encroach 
upon  the  disputed  territory  in  violation  of  the  Agreement  of  1850; 
the  disputed  territory  thus  neutralized  being  that  west  of  the  Puma- 
ron and  above  tidewater  on  the  Cuyuni. 

22.  Certified  copies  of  official  Records  of  the  Government  of  British 
Guiana,  showing  that  there  were  no  British  missionary  or  ecclesias- 
tical establishments  west  of  the  Pumaron  in  the  year  1850. 

23.  Certified  copy  of  a  Paper  written  and  published  by  Mr.  Everard  F. 
im  Thurn  (British  Magistrate  in  Guayana),  dated  August,  1879, 
wherein  it  is  admitted  that  Great  Britain  then  had  no  valid  claim 
to  any  territory  on  the  Atlantic  coast  west  of  the  Moroco  river,  nor 
to  any  above  the  great  falls  in  the  Cuyuni  basin. 

24.  Certified  copies  of  Census  Reports  by  the  Government  of  British 
Guiana  in  1851,  showing  absence  of  all  British  control  west  of  the 
Pumaron  river. 

25.  Certified  copies  of  the  proceedings  of   the    "Court  of  Policy"    of 

British  Guiana,  June  8,  1867  ;  containing  official  notice  to  all  British 
subjects  that  "  any  mining  concessions  "  obtained  by  them,  or  "any 
settlements  "  made  or  attempted  to  be  made  by  them,  in  the  dis- 
puted territory,  would  be  at  their  own  individual  risk  ;  and  that  in 
case  said  territory  should,  by  subsequent  settlement  of  the  bound- 
ary dispute,  become  Venezuelan  territory,  "no  claim  to  compensa- 
tion from  the  Colony  or  from  Her  Majesty's  Government "  would 
be  recognized,  etc. 

26.  "  Lizar's  Edinburgh  General  Atlas,"  London,  1829;  showing  no 
British  occupation  west  of  the  Pumaron. 

27.  "  New  London  Universal  Gazeteer,"  with  maps,  London,  1829; 
showing  the  Pumaron  as  the  frontier  limit  of  British  Guiana. 

28.  Certified  copies  of  papers  in  the  Vatican  archives,  with  copies  of 
accompanying  sketch  maps,  showing  number  and  location  of  Span- 
ish missions,  mission  settlements,  and  cattle  ranches  in  Guayana 
from  1724  to  1788. 

29.  Certified  copies  of  Decrees  and  other  official  papers,  in  the  archives 

of  the  Foreign  Affairs,  Interior,  and  Navy  Departments  of  the 
Government  at  Caracas,  showing  that  Venezuela  exercised  effective 
and  exclusive  jurisdiction  at  the  mouths  of  the  Orinoco  from  1836 


91 

to  1886:  that  in  1873  she  maintained  pontoon  lights,  buoys,  pilots 
and  pilot  boats  at  Point  Barima,  Brazo  Barima,  and  Boco  de  Navios  ; 
that  these  had  been  maintained  by  her,  and  that  she  had  exercised 
continuous  jurisdiction  there,  up  to  the  time  of  the  armed  occupa- 
tion by  the  British  in  1886. 

30.  Certified  copies  of  judicial  proceedings  in  the  British  Colony  of 
Esequibo  in  1828,  showing  absence  of  all  British  jurisdiction  or 
pretended  jurisdiction  west  of  the  Pumaron  river. 

31.  Certified  copies  of  Protests  and  Remonstrances  by  Venezuela  during 
the  years  from  1886  to  1896  against  British  encroachments  and 
usurpations  on  the  Orinoco  delta,  at  Barima  Point,  on  the  Brazo 
Barima,  on  the  Wainai  river,  at  the  Amacuro  mouth,  and  in  the 
Cuyuni  basin. 

32.  Pamphlet  on  the  Guayana  Boundary  question,  written  by  Dr.  Rafael 
Seijas  in  reply  to  an  article  in  the  London  Times,  1895. 

^  Memorandum  by  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Venezuela, 
relative  to  statements  made  by  Lord  Salisbury  in  his  note  of  No- 
vember 26,  1895. 

34.  Brief,  by  J.  J.  Storrow,  Esq.,  of  Boston,  on  the  subject  of  "  Settled 
Districts";  showing  what  in  law  constitutes  effective  occupation, 
and  that  Great  Britain's  extravagant  claim  to  territory  in  Guayana 
now  set  up  in  virtue  of  "actual  British  settlements,"  is  supported 
neither  by  fact  or  law. 

35.  The  Venezuela  Brief,  or  Reply  to  the  British  Blue  Book  of  March, 

1896;  prepared  by  a  Special  Commission  at  Caracas.  While  this 
very  learned  and  able  Paper  is  moderate  and  conservative  in  tone, 
it  is  an  exhaustive  and  masterly  review  of  the  whole  controversy. 
It  refutes  the  British  contention  at  every  point,  and  shows  that, 
both  in  law  and  fact,  Venezuela  as  the  successor  of  Spain,  is  the 
rightful  owner  of  the  whole  territory  between  the  Orinoco  and 
the  Essequibo,  and  from  the  Atlantic  coast  to  the  Brazilian  border. 


RETURN  TO:       CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
198  Main  Stacks 

LOAN  PERIOD     1 
Home  Use 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS. 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 
Books  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 

DJ^Af  STA/^D  BELOW. 

MAY  1  &  MB 

FORM  NO.  DD6                        UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
50M    4-04                                                    Berkeley,  California  94720-6000 

